Kinship Organisations and Group Marriage in Australia

by Northcote Whitridge Thomas

[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.