[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 wr[=u]k[)u]t, and this seems to be the ordinary term.

[171] Titular maian is Dr Howitt’s phrase.

[172] Dr Howitt’s statement on p. 281 that the widow invariably passes to the brother is contradicted by passages on pp. 227 and 248.

[173] Dr Howitt (p. 176) does not admit this to be correct, but cf. his attitude 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 sex 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.