There are still two points connected with this heading which emphasize the difference between the individual marriage and the Pirrauru relation,[316] namely that individual marriage must precede Pirrauru relations; in other words, that only married women may be made Pirraurus. Secondly, that although any woman may have only one Tippa Malku husband (men may have several Tippa Malku wives), she may have several Pirraurus. This very point induced many writers to consider the Pirrauru as a form of group marriage.[317] That this relation bears a group-character is beyond doubt. That it must be clearly distinguished from marriage is just what we try to show here.[318]
2. Another interesting point about the Pirrauru, is that no consent of the parties is asked.[319] But this appears, according to other data, to hold strictly good only as far as the woman is concerned. For we are told[320] in another place that a woman's wishes are not taken into account unless through the mediation of her husband. Hence it seems that on one side a man's wishes may be taken into account, and on the other side a man may even dispose of his own wife. This points to the fact that a husband's consent or mediation when his wife is concerned may be of some weight. The same conclusion results from the fact (already noticed by Mr. Thomas in this connection) that two men may eventually exchange their wives in connection with the Pirrauru custom.[321] All this appears quite plausible if we bear in mind that[322] the old men keep the greatest number of females for themselves—at least all the most comely ones. And that these very men have afterwards the right of disposing of their wives. They will, on the one hand, exchange some of the females with each other; on the other hand, they will allot perhaps some of their wives to one or another of the young men living in celibacy. In fact, we read that very often old and renowned warriors give their wives to some youngster, who regards it as a great honour.[323] In conclusion it appears probable that the man had a voice in the choice of his Pirrauru or had not, according to his personal influence. As to the woman, it was her husband's part to decide, or at least to influence the opinion of the camp council. But statements are not clear on this point, and we are left here to a great extent to our own conjectures.
3. From the foregoing, it results that the husband still retains some over-right and control over his wife. And that is a very important point. For in the light of this fact, the waiving of sexual privileges connected with the Pirrauru custom does not appear to encroach any more on the husband's right to his wife than the custom of wife-exchange or wife-lending. This fact of the necessity of the husband's consent is confirmed by Howitt's explicit statement. We read[324] that a man has right of access to his Pirrauru only during the absence of her husband or, if the latter were present in camp, only with his consent. It is evident, therefore, that the husband's rights are by no means annihilated or superseded by the Pirrauru's rights. He waives his rights voluntarily, and his consent is essential.
4. Another point of importance is that this relationship does not constitute a permanent status, and that it may be actualized only at intervals. In the first place, the sexual licence involved in this custom is exercised during the tribal gathering, for the night in which the assignation of Pirraurus took place; the licence lasts for about four hours.[325] This relation is probably renewed during some of the next gatherings; during the husband's absence; when a man is sent on an embassy with his Pirraurus; in some cases where the husband gives his consent. But although none of our sources say so expressly, we may safely deny the assertion that the Pirrauru relation had a permanent status. For, if it were actually valid and exercised permanently, we would not be informed, as we are, as to the special occasions on which it takes place, and of the conditions under which it may be exercised. Again, if the Pirrauru involved a permanent status or, more explicitly, if groups of men and women who are Pirraurus to each other respectively, normally and permanently live in marital relations, no one of our authorities, who plead so strongly for the character of group marriage in the relation in question, would omit to emphasize such an important feature, which would support their views in the highest degree. For this is a crucial question indeed: if the Pirrauru right entitles, in the first place, only to a short licence and establishes permanently merely a facultative right, then, even in its sexual aspect, it does not approach the rights established by Tippa Malku marriage in these tribes. And, although the evidence on this point is not quite decisive, we are, as we saw, entitled to suppose that the sexual licence connected with the Pirrauru is only an occasional one.
Besides the facts and reasons enumerated above, I may adduce a very important passage from Howitt's last work, which may be considered the ultimate opinion of this eminent ethnographer concerning the problem of group marriage in Australia—a hypothesis of which he always has been a most ardent supporter. "A study of the evidence which has been detailed in the last chapter has led me to the conclusion that the state of society among the early Australians was that of an Undivided Commune. Taking this as a postulate, the influence on marriage and descent of the class division, the sub-classes and the totems may be considered on the assumption that there was once an Undivided Commune. It is, however, well to guard this expression. I do not desire to imply necessarily the existence of complete and continuous communism between the sexes. The character of the country, the necessity of moving from one spot to another in search of game and vegetable food, would cause any Undivided Commune, when it assumed dimensions greater than the immediate locality could provide with food, to break up into two or more communes of the same character. In addition to this it is clear, after a long acquaintance with the Australian savage, that in the past, as now, individual likes and dislikes must have existed; so that, admitting the existence of common rights between the members of the Commune, these rights would remain in abeyance, so far as the separated parts of the Commune were concerned. But at certain gatherings, such as Bunya-bunya harvest in Queensland, or on great ceremonial occasions, all the segments of the original community would reunite. In short, so far as the evidence goes at present, I think that the probable condition of the Undivided Commune may be considered to be represented by what occurs on certain occasions when the modified Communes of the Lake Eyre tribes reunite."[326]
This shows that after a long and mature consideration of the problems in question, Howitt came to the conclusion that "group marriage" never could have existed as a permanent status, and that it could have been established only in connection with large tribal gatherings. In such a light the hypothesis of former or even actual "group marriage" becomes very plausible, or rather it ceases to be a hypothesis and it becomes one of the best established facts of the Australian ethnology.
But at the same time, although we may accord the term "group marriage" (if any one wishes at any price to retain it), we must note that such a state of things is radically different from marriage in the usual sense of the word, and in particular from marriage as found in actual existence in the Australian aboriginal society, and described in this study. It will be sufficient to point out that such an occasional sexual licence lasting several hours during an initiation gathering could not create any bonds of family, such as may result from community of daily life and community of interests, common inhabiting of the same dwelling, common eating, especially common rearing of children—all factors which, as will be shown below, act only in the individual family and tend to make out of the individual family a well-established and well-defined unit.
We must adduce one fact which stands in opposition to what is just said. I mean the statement of Spencer and Gillen, that amongst the Urabunna the Piraungarus are "generally found living grouped together." This statement might possibly point first to a permanent state of marital relations, secondly to a common mode of living. Now it may be remarked that such an offhand statement on such a crucial point shows undoubtedly that the authors were insufficiently informed themselves on this point, and that, therefore, we must accept this statement with the utmost caution.[327]
The problem of the mode of living of the Pirrauru groups involves two questions—first, what persons constituted the local group (temporary or permanent); and second, how the members of a Pirrauru group lived within it. The statement of Spencer and Gillen may mean that a group of Pirraurus constituted a given temporary local group. But within this group husband and wife must have formed a distinct unit. Now as to the question of how far such a grouping of Pirraurus (if we accept the above statement as correct) would imply a permanent marital status between the Pirraurus, it is impossible to answer. On this point, too, the information about the Urabunna is vague and defective, and it is safer to base our conclusions on the more explicit and reliable material given by Howitt in the case of the Dieri.
[5.] Did the Pirrauru union last for the whole life, or could it be dissolved? In one place we read that the relation in question lasts for life; in another place we are told[328] that the old men watch over the Pirraurus in order that there may result no trouble from mutual jealousy; and if a man has too many Pirraurus they compel or advise him to limit himself to one or two. No answer can be given, therefore, to this question.