Chapter IV: Sexual Aspect of Marriage (1)

The next point in our investigation is the sexual aspect of the Australian marriage. Unfortunately it will not be much easier to draw a decisive inference from the evidence in this case than it was in the foregoing one. There is perhaps less patent contradiction between the statements; and we are able here to reduce many of the incongruities to geographical differences. But the whole question is very complicated by the fact that the sexual features of marital life in Australia have caused much discussion in connection with the hypothesis of primitive promiscuity and group marriage. They have been very often interpreted according to this hypothesis. Different customs have been pointed out as unmistakable survivals of previous states of marital communism or group marriage. Group marriage has even been said to be in actual existence amongst some tribes.

In accordance with our opening statement, polemics will be strictly avoided here, particularly in reference to questions of prehistory; and, therefore, we need not concern ourselves with the problem whether certain facts point to the previous existence of group marriage or promiscuity; nor with the problem whether certain features are survivals of a similar state of things.[230] Highly objectionable from our point of view, however, is the fact that our best informants (especially Howitt and Spencer and Gillen) describe the facts of sexual life of to-day in terms of their hypothetical assumptions. To gain, therefore, a clear picture of the actual state of things we shall have to disintegrate all that is hypothetic in the statements from the actual facts.

[230] The solution of this problem would, in the first
place, require a revision of the concept of _survival_, in
order to avoid arbitrariness when classifying one custom
as a survival, another as an innovation. I venture to
say such classifications have been made too carelessly.
I think it will be clear from the whole of this book,
that the individual family should not be considered as a
mere innovation, and that, accordingly, there is hardly
any justification for treating the customs in question as
survivals. But this is only by way of parenthesis; these
problems lie outside our task. They must be treated on a
broader basis than that of the Australian ethnographic area
only.

That is the first reason why it will be necessary to submit here and there the statements to some discussion. But there is another reason. Being concerned with the problem of the individual family and individual relationship, we must keep in mind that although the sexual aspect of family life is very important, nevertheless, it is only one side of the picture, and that to outline this picture correctly, we may not exaggerate one side of it. Now, by a quite illegitimate silent assumption, the sexual features are often treated as the most important--in some cases as the exclusive factors of marriage. But marriage, as we saw and shall have the opportunity to see still more clearly, is rooted in all the manifold facts that constitute the family life: mode of living, economics of the household, and above all the relation of the parents to their children. Unless it is proved, therefore, that the unity of family life and the individuality of the family break down on all these points, no general inference as to group marriage can be drawn from the mere facts of sexual communism. In other words, sexual licence is nothing like group marriage. How far we have the right to infer the _actual_ existence of group marriage (_ergo_ group family) from sexual facts in Australia, must therefore be discussed now, while we are concerned with the sexual aspect of the Australian family.

I wish to make it quite clear that any discussion upon our evidence will be carried out merely with the aim of getting a clear picture of the actual state of things. It is not our task to polemize with the general theories as to the previous state of things, origin of family, etc., set forth by our authors. For a criticism of Howitt's, and Spencer and Gillen's speculations on the origin of marriage, the reader may be referred to the excellent chapter in Mr. Thomas's work. This criticism seems to me to leave no doubts that the general views expounded by the ethnographers mentioned above are hardly founded on any of the Australian facts. These views are mere hypotheses, drawn theoretically from facts. Personal knowledge of these latter could hardly have enabled the ethnologists to theorize more correctly on them. From Mr. Thomas's criticism it results also, that it is no exaggeration to say that the continual application of these hypotheses to the actual state of things considerably obscures the clearness and value of their evidence. It is necessary to add, nevertheless, that Howitt especially always gives very first-rate information concerning family life, the institution of marriage, etc.; and, according to my view, his theories are contradicted by the excellent and admirably rich information he himself gives on social matters. If we can seldom agree with him as speculative sociologist, we always admire him in his ethnographic research.

The following statements are intended to give an account of all the features of sexual life in Australia, especially as far as they bear upon family life. We shall, therefore, in the first place pay attention to the way in which sexual intercourse is limited and determined by marriage. Are the marital relations the exclusive right and privilege of the husband? Or has he only a certain over-right, modified by some other factors (which we must endeavour to determine). Or is there (at least in some tribes) really a sort of group marriage (using the word "marriage" to designate mainly the sexual side of it)? In the second place we must also pay some attention to the more general questions of chastity, licence before marriage, and so on. And finally, the features of the interesting and important forms of ceremonial and regulated licence must be traced more in detail.

_Statements._--Amongst the Kurnai "the husband expected strict
fidelity from his wife, but he did not admit any reciprocal
obligation on his part towards her."[231] ... "The expected
fidelity towards the husband was enforced by severe penalties.
In cases of elopement her life was in his hands.... Each man not
only expected his wife to be faithful to himself, but he, on his
part, never lent her to a friend or to a guest."[232] In another
place,[233] Howitt says, about the same tribe, that sometimes wives
were exchanged "by order of the old men" to avert some impending
danger to the tribe. We see that with these rare exceptions, the
husband had quite exclusive sexual rights over a woman. Even the
general practice of wife-lending seems to have been entirely
absent. Now, as Howitt is a strong adherent of the theory of group
marriage, we may accept his statements asserting individuality of
"marriage" as especially trustworthy.

[231] Howitt, _Kam. and Kurn._, p. 205.

[232] _Ibid._, p. 202, Latin footnote; p. 205.

[233] _Smith. Rep._, 1883, p. 810.

Amongst the Murring[234] "the only occurrence of licence is when a
visitor from a distance is provided with a temporary wife by the
hosts.... In cases of elopement, when the woman is captured, she
becomes for a time the common property of the pursuers. With these
exceptions, marriage seems to me strictly individual."[235] (We see
that here again Howitt speaks of individual marriage where there
are only, in fact, individual sexual rights.) The only exceptions
were here, wife-lending to visitors and the characteristic form of
punishment.

[234] _Ibid._

[235] As Howitt uses the term "marriage" to denote only
its sexual side, we must understand that sexual rights are
strictly individual.

Curr says:[236] "Amongst Australians there is no community of
women. The husband is the absolute owner of his wife (or wives)."
He is very jealous and "usually assumes that his wife has been
unfaithful to him, whenever there has been an opportunity for
criminality; hence the laws with respect to women are very
stringent." A woman is completely isolated.[237] The husband will,
nevertheless, often "prostitute his wife to his brothers" or
visitors.[238] Here we see the same: the man can dispose of his
wife (the term prostitute is here probably used rather in rhetoric
sense, for it does not seem that the man would receive any direct
contribution for wife-lending); but he is very jealous in all cases
where anything might happen behind his back.

[236] _A.R._, i. p. 109. This may be considered as
trustworthy only in reference to the North Victorian
tribes, especially the Bangerang, whom Curr had under
personal observation.

[237] See below, Chap. V.

[238] _A.R._, i. p. 110.

On the West Victorian aborigines Dawson writes[239] that
illegitimate children were rare, and the mother was severely
beaten, sometimes even put to death, by the relatives. "The father
of the child is also punished with the greatest severity and
occasionally killed." The woman's relatives do not even accept his
presents as expiation. "Exchange[240] of wives is permitted only
after the death of their parents and, of course, with the consent
of the chiefs, but is not allowed if either of the women has
children." What is said about illegitimate children, would point
to sexual morality before marriage. But we can hardly conceive how
in a society, where females are handed over to their husbands,
often before, and at the latest at reaching puberty, there could be
illegitimate children at all. The whole statement is not clear.

[239] _Loc. cit._, p. 28.

[240] He doesn't say if temporary or permanent exchange.
Probably the first, as he speaks below of divorce.

Beveridge[241] says of the aborigines of Victoria and Riverina:
"Chastity is quite unknown amongst them." "In their sexual
intercourse ... they are not in the least bit particular,
consequently incest of every grade is continually being
perpetrated."[242]

[241] _Loc. cit._, p. 23.

[242] This assertion of incest is quite in contradiction
with all we know about Australians and undoubtedly false;
it may be true in the case of quite "civilized" blacks,
perhaps. I quote it as an instance of how, from one
statement only, one might draw absolutely false conclusions.

"Among the Wotjobaluk it was not usual for men to have more than
one wife, and they were very strict in requiring fidelity from
her, and did not lend a wife to a friend or to a visitor from a
distance." Death was the punishment for both the wife and her
accomplice in case of adultery.[243] According to this statement
not only fidelity is required in this tribe, but even chastity is
known as a virtue. This seems rather exaggerated, and as it is
given only by a correspondent of Howitt, we shall not attach to
it too much weight. Nevertheless, this, in agreement with all our
other statements on Victoria, shows that the standard of sexual
morality could not be very low there, as we might infer from the
foregoing statement.

[243] Howitt, _Nat. Tr._, p. 245.

"Marriage is not looked upon as any pledge of chastity, indeed,
no such virtue is recognized." And in a Latin footnote the
author enumerates the proofs: promiscuity of unmarried people;
wife-lending and exchange; general ceremonial licence.[244] But the
Adelaide tribes were much degenerated, and possibly some customs
relate to the Lake Eyre tribes, with whom the author was also
acquainted.

[244] Eyre, ii. p. 320, about the Lower Murray River tribes.

J. Moore Davis[245] speaks in a Latin passage of the licence at
corroborees and of the rights of access enjoyed by old men at the
initiation of the girls. The statement is not localized.

[245] Brough Smyth, ii. p. 319. This statement (and the
whole article) does not refer to any single tribe; there
are mentioned tribes from all over the continent.

Among the Narrinyeri, youths during initiation are allowed
unrestricted sexual licence.[246]

[246] Taplin, _loc. cit._, p. 18.

In the Turra tribe: "Women were bound to be faithful to their
husbands, also the husbands to their wives. Whoever was guilty of
unfaithfulness was liable to be punished by death at the hands of
the class of the offender."[247] This statement is very clear; but
if it is equally correct it reports quite an exceptional state of
things.

[247] Yorke Peninsula, Kühn, _loc. cit._, p. 286.

Schürmann writes about the Port Lincoln tribes: "Although the men
are capable of fierce jealousy, if their wives transgress unknown
to them, yet they frequently send them out to other parties, or
exchange with a friend for a night; and as for near relatives,
such as brothers, it may almost be said that they have their wives
in common."[248] But does this community of wives refer merely to
sexual matters? It is probably so, as the author mentions it in
connection with the general description of this side of aboriginal
life.

[248] _Loc. cit._, pp. 222, 223.

C. Wilhelmi writes about the same tribes: "Although the men are
apt to become passionately jealous if they detect their wives
transgressing without their consent, yet of their own accord they
offer them and send them to other men, or make an exchange for
a night with some one of their friends. Of relatives, brothers
in particular, it may be said that they possess their wives
jointly."[249] This statement and the foregoing can hardly be
looked upon as independent; for Wilhelmi knew the missionary
Schürmann personally, and had from him a good deal of his
information; the two statements are almost literally identical.

[249] Ch. Wilhelmi, p. 180.

Amongst the Yerkla Mining tribes: "A wife is bound to be faithful
to her husband." She is severely punished; if successively guilty,
killed.[250] Women are lent, but very seldom.[251]

[250] Howitt, _Nat. Tr._, p. 258.

[251] _Ibid._

A. L. P. Cameron reports some cases of sexual licence among the
Darling River tribes. They used to exchange wives "either at some
grand assembly of the tribe, or in order to avert some threatened
calamity." But the author adds, "This custom is, I think, rare at
present."[252] At any rate, we may bracket this statement with that
of Howitt, who also speaks of wife exchange, in order to avert
impending calamity.

[252] _Loc. cit._, p. 353.

Charles Wilkes writes, that jealousy is very strongly developed
among the New South Wales blacks. From it originate occasional
quarrels, and the women suffer especially from jealousy and
suspicions. There are also regulated fights and ordeals in order to
settle quarrels and enmities ensuing from sexual matters.[253]

[253] _Loc. cit._ (smaller edition), i., p. 226.

Tench mentions the sexual licence of unmarried girls among the Port
Jackson tribes.[254]

[254] _Loc. cit._, p. 199.

We read about the natives of Botany Bay, that the men were very
jealous.[255]

[255] Phillip, pp. 34, 35.

Turnbull says, that quarrels arise usually from jealousy in sexual
matters. The affair usually becomes more general and involves the
whole tribe.[256]

[256] _Loc. cit._, pp. 90, 99. Tribes of New South Wales,
probably from the neighbourhood of Sydney.

Amongst the Geawe Gal there were probably occasions on which
"promiscuous intercourse (subject to the class rules) took
place."[257]

[257] Rusden, _loc. cit._, p. 281.

Amongst the Kamilaroi "the punishment for adultery was, that when
a woman was _taramu_, that is, shifty, wanton, adulterous, the
husband complained to his kindred, who carried the matter before
the headman, and if the charge was found to be true, her punishment
was to be taken without the camp and to be handed over to all
comers for that night, and her cries were not heeded."[258] Women
were lent to friends, visitors, but with their own consent.[259]
This statement confirms again the majority of those relating to the
South-east tribes. The husband did not tolerate any trespass in
these matters; and the community intervened. On the other hand, he
had (with her consent) the right to dispose of her.

[258] C. E. Doyle in Howitt's _Nat. Tr._, pp. 207, 208.

[259] _Ibid._

Amongst the Euahlayi: "There are two codes of morals, one for men
and one for women. Old Testament morality for men, New Testament
for women."[260] This applies, probably, chiefly to sexual matters,
for we read in another place,[261] "Unchaste men were punished
terribly.... The death penalty for wantonness was enforced." Also
a girl "found guilty of frailty" is severely punished by her
relatives.[262] An "absolute wanton" is ignominiously treated,
the result being almost inevitably death.[263] This statement is
incomplete, as we are not told if adultery and wantonness are
punished only when they are perpetrated without knowledge of the
husband; in other words, we are not informed if the widespread
custom of wife-lending was absent or not among the Euahlayi.

[260] Mrs. Parker, p. 58.

[261] _Ibid._, p. 59.

[262] _Ibid._, p. 60.

[263] _Ibid._

Amongst the Dieri there was besides the regular Tippa Malku
marriage, the occasional _Pirrauru_ relation. The sexual
intercourse of the latter was confined to some festival or to
the case when the Tippa Malku husband was absent. The number
of _Pirraurus_ of each man was limited, and they were strictly
assigned to each other. There was sexual jealousy amongst the
_Pirraurus_. The husband had, apparently, the right to decline the
use of his wife to any _Pirrauru_. The _Pirrauru_ relation will
be discussed more in detail below. The custom of wife-lending is
prevalent: "continually their wives are lent for prostitution, the
husband receiving presents."[264] It may be noted, that this is the
only place where wife-lending is stated to take this form. Besides,
we are informed by Howitt that the unmarried girls and widows were
allowed a considerable amount of sexual freedom, this custom being
called _Ngura-mundu_.[265]

[264] _J.A.I._, xxiv. p. 170. Gason in answer to Prof.
Frazer's "Questions."

[265] _Nat. Tr._, p. 187.

The Urabunna, living in the neighbourhood of the Dieri, had an
institution analogous to the _Pirrauru_ custom. Besides his _Nupa_
or individual wives, of whom he might possess one or two, who were
"specially attached to him and lived with him in his own camp,"
he could have several _Piraungarus_ to whom he had "access under
certain conditions."[266] (But we are not informed what these
conditions are; we may infer, however, that they are analogous
to those existing among the Dieri, which we know in detail: see
below.) Our authors inform us further that the _Piraungarus_ "are
to be found living grouped together."[267] We shall discuss below
this _Piraungaru_ relation more in detail.

[266] Spencer and Gillen, _Nat. Tr._, p. 109.

[267] _Idem_, _Nor. Tr._, pp. 72, 73.

Amongst the Arunta nation, there are different occasions on which
men besides the husband have sexual access to the woman. There are
the customs at the "initiation" of the girls.[268] And there are
many cases in which the husband is compelled by custom to waive his
rights on behalf of some one else; such instances generally happen
in connection with ceremonial gatherings.[269] It is important to
note that on these occasions men have access to women with whom it
would be most criminal for them to have intercourse under normal
conditions; and a man may cohabit even with his mother-in-law, from
whom he is under normal conditions absolutely isolated.[270]

[268] Spencer and Gillen, _Nat. Tr._, chap. iii. pp. 92-96;
and _Nor. Tr._, chap. iv., pp. 133 _sqq._ About these
ceremonies, some words were said above, pp. 42, 43, in
connection with marriage ceremonies.

[269] _Nat. Tr._, pp. 96, 97.

[270] _Ibid._, p. 97, and _Nor. Tr._, p. 137. The features
of these ceremonial licences will be discussed more in
detail below.

The ceremonies of initiation of girls in Central Australia, and
sexual promiscuity connected with them, are also mentioned by
W. H. Willshire. Women after initiation are sexually "at the mercy
of all who may get hold of them."[271] The same author mentions also
the sexual "immorality" of the natives in question.[272] This raw
statement, although inadequately formulated, corroborates Spencer
and Gillen's exact data.

[271] _Loc. cit._, p. 30.

[272] _Loc. cit._, p. 36.

Analogously in the Northern tribes there are several exceptions
from the individuality of sexual relations. The man may lend his
wife to his friends or to people whose favour he wishes to gain.
There are customs at the initiation of girls, when several men,
standing to the girl in a certain group (tribal) relationship,
have access to her. In the third place there is the sexual licence
connected with certain ceremonies, when men are obliged to cede
their wives to some of their tribesmen.[273] And we read the
description of the most horrid atrocities which men inflict as
punishments upon their unfaithful wives.[274] We read in the same
place that the charming away of women by magic was one of the
chief sources of fights and quarrels. About sexual jealousy in the
Central and Northern tribes, we read: "Now and again if a husband
thinks that his wife has been unfaithful to him, she will certainly
meet with exceedingly cruel treatment."[275]

[273] Spencer and Gillen, _Nor. Tr._, chap. iv. pp. 133
_sqq._

[274] _Idem_, _Nor. Tr._, p. 474.

[275] _Ibid._, p. 33.

We are informed about the existence of the practice of exchange of
wives among the Northern tribes (Port Darwin, Powell's Creek) in
the answers to Prof. Frazer's "Questions."[276]

[276] _J.A.I._, xxiv. p. 178.

J. D. Lang says about the aborigines of Queensland, that the
"conjugal relations are maintained with great decency." But he
mentions the custom of wife-lending.[277]

[277] _Loc. cit._, p. 237.

Amongst the Maryborough tribes, sexual licence is allowed before
marriage and there is a camp of unmarried girls.[278] Many,
however, "remain perfectly virtuous until their promised husband
fetches them."[279] Women who were wanton after their marriage "are
looked down upon as the prostitutes of the tribe, and are lent to
visitors as temporary wives."[280] Here chastity seems to be not so
strongly required. But the statement is somewhat odd as regards the
camp of unmarried girls.

[278] Howitt, _Nat. Tr._, p. 232.

[279] _Ibid._, p. 233.

[280] _Ibid._

Amongst the Kabi and Wakka tribes (Queensland, near Maryborough),
there are cases where the "seniors of the camp" have some rights
over a woman. In general none but the husband had any matrimonial
"rights over the wife, and the jealousy made him take good care she
was not interfered with, unless he was a consenting party."[281]
Here we have again the characteristic feature: the husband had
exclusive sexual rights over his wife; but he might dispose of her,
and used to do so.

[281] J. Mathew, pp. 161, 162.

Amongst the North-west Central Queensland aborigines[282] there is
a certain licence before marriage "unless they should happen to be
betrothed"; in that case the husband does not like it. "Morality in
its broadest sense is recognized a virtue." And in another place we
are informed that "if an aboriginal requires a woman temporarily,
he either borrows a wife from her husband for a night or two in
exchange for boomerangs, a shield, food, etc., or else violates the
female when unprotected, when away from the camp, out in the bush."
In the latter case, if the woman is unmarried "no one troubles
himself about the matter." If married, a quarrel would ensue if the
husband came to know anything.[283] Roth gives also an account of
the initiation ceremonies, in which females, arrived at puberty,
are ceremonially deflorated by old men. It is important to note
that the exogamous class rule is disregarded on such occasions,
when several men of forbidden degrees have access to the woman,
but blood relations are strictly excluded. A girl acquires a new
designation, corresponding to the new age grade; she becomes
marriageable and enters altogether into a new status.[284]

[282] Roth, Bull. 8, p. 7, § 3.

[283] _Idem_, _Ethnol. Stud._, p. 182, § 327.

[284] _Ethnol. Stud._, pp. 174 _sqq._

Among the natives of Cape York the unmarried girls are allowed to
have free intercourse, but a female once married is required to
be absolutely faithful to her husband, and this requirement is
enforced by severe punishments.[285]

[285] Macgillivray, ii. p. 8.

Amongst the tribes of West Australia: "The crime of adultery is
punished severely--often by death."[286] Grey speaks also of
the "stern and vigilant jealousy."[287] "... the bare suspicion
of infidelity upon their part is enough to ensure to them the
most cruel and brutal treatment."[288] But he mentions also the
continuous rows and plots that issue round a beautiful woman,[289]
who knows sometimes how to evade the precautions of her husband.
Grey speaks emphatically of the "horror of incest."[290] Fidelity
seems, therefore, to be severely enforced in these tribes. Grey
says nothing about wife-lending. Chastity does not seem to have
obtained there, nevertheless.

[286] Grey, ii. p. 242.

[287] _Ibid._, p. 252; also see p. 248.

[288] _Ibid._, p. 249.

[289] _Ibid._, pp. 248, 249.

[290] _Ibid._, p. 242.

We read in Oldfield, about the West Australian tribes, that there
was an "initiation" ceremony before a female was considered fit
for marriage; in it "all the males of the tribe" partook. Women
sometimes betray their husbands.[291]

[291] _Loc. cit._, p. 251. The tribes in question are those
of the Murchison district.

Mrs. D. M. Bates reports, that among the tribes of West Australia
she had under observation, there exists a "certain tribal morality"
and "bad or loose living women (according to their ideas) occupied
much the same status in a certain degree as our unfortunate sisters
do amongst us." There were even contemptuous names for women of
bad conduct.[292] Unfortunately, this statement says absolutely
nothing of what would be the most interesting thing to know, viz.
the ideas of the natives about sexual matters, in other words,
the code of the "tribal morality." Here, besides the fidelity
which was strictly required, a complete chastity is affirmed. On
the whole it seems to agree roughly with Grey's and Salvado's
statements; he also does not mention any regulated licence. As our
information on West Australia is so scanty, we can hardly decide
whether sex morality stands there much higher than in the Central
and North-eastern peoples; but as we have reason to regard both the
information of Grey and of Salvado as trustworthy and accurate, we
may assume that this difference actually existed.

[292] _Loc. cit._, p. 51.

Similarly Bishop Salvado speaks of the great jealousy of the
natives of South-west Australia and of their morality. "Le sauvage
ne pardonne jamais l'insulte faite à la pudeur des femmes qui lui
appartiennent; c'est un outrage qui se paye cher et le plus souvent
par la mort."[293] "... je n'ai jamais observé autour de nous un
seul acte tant que ce soit peu indécent ou déshonnête parmi eux ...
au contraire j'ai trouvé les mœurs louable au plus haut point."[294]

[293] _Loc. cit._, p. 279.

[294] _Loc. cit._, p. 280.

Scott Nind informs us about the natives of King George's Sound,
that "infidelity is by no means uncommon. The husband keeps a
jealous eye on his wife, and on the least excuse for suspicion she
is severely punished."[295]

[295] _Loc. cit._, p. 39.

In reviewing this material, the first thing to be noted is a considerable geographical variety of custom and law in sexual matters. There are clear and radical differences between the South-eastern tribes, the South Central, North Central, and Northern Queensland tribes. The views on sexual morality apparently differ as much as the actual practices. Whereas in Victoria, South-eastern New South Wales, and the Southern territory of South Australia there are no traces of regulated licence, or at least not in a very conspicuous form--in the South Central tribes the features of _Pirrauru_ relations; in the Central and North Central different forms of ceremonial licence are highly developed, and play an important part in tribal life. In Queensland there does not seem to exist such a very strict sexual morality, as far as we can gather from our statements. Our five statements from West Australia do not give a very clear picture. Undoubtedly these geographical differences, as here indicated, must be conceived as merely rough approximations. There are too many contradictions between the statements concerning the South-eastern area; the data as to Queensland and West Australia are too few and vague to allow anything beyond mere generalities. But broadly, as is indicated above, these local differences undoubtedly exist.

Besides the data contained in the statements there is, to confirm this view, the opinion of A. W. Howitt. In his article on the tribal and social organization in Australia, this writer directly points out the radical differences existing between the South Central and the South-eastern tribes in sexual matters; and as he knew from personal acquaintance or from reliable informants the whole area, we may consider this geographical difference as thoroughly established.[296]

[296] See _Smith. Rep._ for 1883, pp. 804 _sqq._ Chap. iv.
on "Marital groups," p. 810, and _Trans. R.S.V._, pp. 115
_sqq._

Let us now draw some general conclusions from the evidence. The points selected at the outset for special attention were: first, the problem of the rights, privileges, and restrictions of the husband in sexual matters; second, the question how is chastity in general, considered and valued? third, a survey of the cases of ceremonial or regulated licence.

1. The first question may be broadly answered by saying that the husband had in general a definite sexual "over-right" over his wife, which secured to him the privilege of disposing of his wife, or at least of exercising a certain control over her conduct in sexual matters. In some cases this over-right amounted to quite an exclusive right, which even in some exceptional tribes was never waived. We read of cases where the husband was not only never compelled by custom, or any other social force, to dispose of his wife, but apparently never did it on his own impulse. In these cases we may say that the absolute faithfulness of a married woman was enforced, and that her chastity was recognized as a virtue. (Wotjobaluk, Turra, and the South-western tribes according to Salvado.) Besides there are several other statements, from which it appears that the sexual rights of the husband were nearly exclusive, and that he was not inclined to waive these rights in order to derive therefrom any personal profit. So among the Kurnai there was no wife-lending nor any other similar custom, and wives were exchanged only in quite exceptional cases in order to avert impending evil. The same is asserted in Cameron's statement. Among the Yerkla Mining women are but seldom lent. Mrs. Parker writes that wantonness was considered a crime among the Euahlayi, and nearly the same has been said by Mrs. Bates about the West Australians. Roth speaks of morality in a broad sense. Grey and Macgillivray write that women were expected to be strictly faithful to their husbands. But in these two last cases we do not know whether lending or exchange of wives was entirely absent, or is only not mentioned by the authors. All the statements which affirm strict and vigilant jealousy, without further analysis, leave the question open as to whether the husband ever allowed adultery to his wife, or whether he punished it only when perpetrated without his consent. But interpreting these statements according to the other more detailed ones, it may be said that in general, such exclusiveness of marital rights and appreciation of chastity seem rather to be an exception; and some caution must be used in accepting the above-mentioned cases of absolute faithfulness and chastity required from married women. As a rule, even where there is not regulated licence, wife lending and exchange, hospitality, etc., seem to be more or less practised.

In the majority of statements these customs are found in one form or the other; in these cases we cannot speak of an absolute fidelity or exclusive individual sexual right of the husband. We read in fifteen of our thirty-eight statements of the customs of wife-lending or exchange; and in twelve some form of sexual licence is mentioned. But in all these cases, where the woman is given away, this is done with the consent and generally on the initiative of her husband, who in the majority of cases derived some benefit from the transaction.[297] Exchange of wives obviously implies an advantage to the husbands. The same must be assumed in the case of hospitality and wife-lending when the courtesy of the husband presupposes a reward in one form or another. In the case of ceremonial licence as related by Spencer and Gillen, wife-lending is always a kind of retribution for religious services. Payment of this nature occurs also for other services, and may be used as bribery towards an avenging party.[298] The husband always disposes of his wife, who is never allowed to take the first step in this matter, and it is consequently he who benefits from her conduct. This conduct does not seem punishable or wrong in any sense to the native mind. Quite otherwise is it with the woman who trespasses without the sanction of custom or without her husband's approval. In all such cases she is considered culpable and more or less severely punished. This is directly stated by Shürmann and Wilhelmi, and appears in nearly all the other statements.

[297] It is to be mentioned that we find an indication in
a few statements that fidelity was binding only on the
female, the males considering themselves free from any
obligation (Howitt's statement on the Kurnai, and Mrs.
Parker's statement on the Euahlayi.) This holds good,
probably, in all the tribes.

[298] See below, page 107.

The punishment dealt out in cases of elopement was discussed above in connection with the mode of obtaining wives. We saw that as a rule the punishment is severe. Sometimes the kindred of the offended party (_i. e._ the husband) help him to punish the offender; sometimes the whole local group takes his side. Several of our statements assert that in cases of elopement, the woman when caught becomes the common property of all her pursuers, and that afterwards she has to undergo severe punishment (Kurnai, Murray tribes). In some statements we read that adultery is punished with death (Wotjobaluk, Turra, Kamilaroi, Euahlayi, South-western tribes); in others, that the punishment for adultery or even a suspicion of it is very cruel (Curr, Spencer and Gillen, J. Mathew, Grey). It appears, therefore, that the husband is very careful about maintaining his over-right over the sexual life of his spouse. He very often has to submit to some customary practices, and often subordinates his wife to some private aim; but he must always give the initiative, or at least have the sexual life of his wife under his control.

2. In the second place a word about the chastity of the unmarried women is necessary. Here we may remark at the outset that this question seems relatively unimportant, as we know that girls are handed over to their promised husbands on arriving at puberty, or even before.[299] On the other hand, it seems hardly probable that girls would have sexual intercourse in their extreme youth (that is, before being married); during this period, girls are continually under the control of both parents, and especially of the mother, and as it will appear from the statements referring to the "bachelors' camp," it is probable that males and females are kept apart from each other before reaching puberty.

[299] Comp. Chap. II., and Chap. VII. p. 257.

That girls had no sexual intercourse before marriage is also suggested by the custom of "initiating" girls by the old men, which takes place immediately before they are handed over to their husbands. From the detailed descriptions of Spencer and Gillen and W. E. Roth it appears that at this initiation girls are deflowered (Central, North Central and Central Queensland tribes).[300] On the other hand, the custom of levirate--_i. e._ of handing over the widow to the deceased's brother or nearest relative--seems to be very widespread (compare above, page 63); so that there are hardly any marriageable and unmarried widows in the aboriginal society. Accordingly we find but little indication of any misconduct in the case of unmarried females, and the few instances we meet with are so little detailed that they do not throw much light upon this question; it is especially uncertain whether they are exceptional innovations, or whether they have any more serious social _raison d'être_. It is mentioned that there exists an unmarried girls' camp with sexual licence (Maryborough tribes, see below, p. 266). Roth mentions that unmarried girls are free in their conduct as long as they are not promised in marriage. We read of a similar freedom in the Dieri tribe, as also in the statements of Tench and Macgillivray. The most important form of licence before marriage seems to be, therefore, the practice of initiation just mentioned.

[300] Spencer and Gillen, _Nat. Tr._, chap. iii., and _Nor.
Tr._, chap. iv. Roth, _Ethnol. Stud._, p. 174, § 305.

Speaking now of chastity in general, and summing up both what was said under the first and the second heading, it may be affirmed that it is not considered in the light of a necessary virtue. Before marriage the girl has to submit to a general sexual intercourse, and after it the woman becomes on many occasions the property of another man. This refers more especially to the tribes described by Spencer and Gillen and Roth. It was said at the outset that a much stricter morality seems to have prevailed in the South-eastern tribes, although there, too, we read of sexual licence (during initiation among the Narrinyeri, and in general, according to Beveridge and Moore Davis). But as it was there possibly much more rarely practised--we are informed by our very best source, Howitt, about several tribes, that they knew and practised chastity (Kurnai, Turra, Wotjobaluk, etc.)--we may keep to the geographical distinction.

3. Let us in the third place speak more in detail about customary and ceremonial licence, as it merits for many reasons our special attention. Here belong, besides the ceremonial defloration of girls by old men (just spoken of), the different forms of licence practised at large tribal gatherings, and especially the _Pirrauru_ relationship, found in several of the South Central tribes.

Besides the exact and detailed data about ceremonial (or ritual) defloration that are given by Spencer and Gillen and Roth, these ceremonies are mentioned also by Willshire, Beveridge, Moore Davis, Mathew, and Oldfield. But the short notes of those latter authors are hardly sufficient to allow any further discussion; they may be considered as a confirmation of the more exact evidence, but the latter, and especially Spencer and Gillen's data, must serve as material for all analyses. These ceremonies, on the one hand, seem to correspond to the initiation ceremonies of the males. It is only in this light that they are represented by Roth, who does not mention any close connection between these ceremonies and marriage, but represents them as the condition of marriageability. The said ceremonies possess, as a matter of fact, many points of analogy with the male initiation ceremonies. They are performed on arrival at puberty; Roth states that the girl then acquires a new name and new status. The operation performed then upon the initiated is also to some extent analogous in both cases.[301] On the other hand Spencer and Gillen represent these ceremonies as directly connected with marriage. What the underlying ideas in this connection are, it is difficult to say. It has been suggested that such ceremonies express a kind of expiation for marriage.[302] But as this idea is not directly embodied in this institution, and as it is not necessarily a condition of its existence, and, moreover, as it has not been directly affirmed by the natives, it may be treated merely as an assumption.

[301] See Spencer and Gillen, _Nor. Tr._, p. 133,
where this is explicitly mentioned. The names of both
ceremonies in the Arunta seem to indicate this analogy;
_atna--ariltha--kuma_ and _pura--ariltha--kuma_ (for their
meaning see the place just quoted).

[302] _Idem_, p. 96, apply this concept, due to Lord
Avebury, to this special case.

A very important and striking feature of ceremonial licence in general, is that the sexual intercourse, which takes place on that occasion, is not subject to class rules. We are indebted to Messrs. Spencer and Gillen for a very minute account of customary licence, which takes place as a rule during corroborees and other ceremonies. "In the Eastern and North-eastern parts of the Arunta, and in the Kaitish, Iliaura and Warramunga tribes, considerable licence is allowed on certain occasions, when a large number of men and women are gathered together to perform certain corroborees. When an important one of these is held, it occupies perhaps ten days or a fortnight, and during that time the men, and especially the elder ones, but by no means exclusively these, spend the day in camp preparing decorations to be used during the evening. Every day two or three women are told off to attend at the corroboree ground, and with the exception of men who stand in the relation to them of actual father, brother, or sons, they are, for the time being, common property to all the men present on the corroboree ground."[303] On all such occasions the class rules are disregarded, they are even broken, so to say, in the most radical way: a man may have, in connection with certain performances, access to his mother-in-law, who under normal conditions is most strictly tabooed to him.[304] And again, in the Warramunga tribe an example is quoted when a tribal father has access to his tribal daughter on ceremonial occasions.[305] This example refers to a case where the woman was offered by her husband as a kind of retribution for some services rendered in performance of ceremonial functions. In the same tribe there are other occasions (in connection with burial) on which a man is bound by custom to offer his wife to a man who was useful to him.[306] The class rule is disregarded in such cases, too. This holds good also in the case when a man receives this form of reward for having been useful to the community as a messenger.[307] When an armed avenging party is sent to carry out a sentence on some other local group, the latter may attempt to bribe the members of the avenging party by offering them some women. If these are accepted, the sentence is not carried out, and the avenging party returns peacefully home. Sexual intercourse under this condition is also not subject to the class rule.[308] It may be said, therefore, that on all occasions[309] when ceremonial licence takes place, the strict class exogamy does not hold good; whereas incest, as regards blood relationship, is always strictly forbidden. This refers both to the initiation rites and to ceremonial licence in the tribes described by Roth and by Spencer and Gillen.

[303] Spencer and Gillen, _Nat. Tr._, pp. 96, 97.

[304] See _ibid._, pp. 96-99 (for the Arunta tribe).

[305] _Nor. Tr._, p. 138.

[306] _Ibid._, p. 139.

[307] _Ibid._

[308] _Ibid._, p. 140.

[309] The _Pirrauru_ custom excepted.

In this place a somewhat extensive digression concerning the _Pirrauru_ custom must be made. This question plays such an important part in all speculations about a former state of group marriage, and it is undoubtedly such an interesting fact by itself, that it would be impossible not to give here an account at least of its most essential features. The custom in question consists in the fact, that in certain of the South-east Central tribes a man and a woman are put into a relationship which involves occasional sexual connection and some other mutual rights and obligations, to be discussed in detail below. This custom is found in the tribes living North, South and East of the Lake Eyre, the Urabunna, the Dieri, Yantruwunta,[310] and other kindred tribes. We know the most about the Dieri, whom Howitt chooses and represents as a typical example of all these tribes, and whose _Pirrauru_ practices in his opinion differ only slightly from those of the neighbouring tribes. This is important, for our knowledge about the Dieri practices is much more ample than in the case of any other tribe; and it does not agree in all particulars with what we are told about the Urabunna by Spencer and Gillen.[311] We shall, therefore, rely in the first place upon the information given about the Dieri by Howitt, Gason, and Siebert, and in our general view of the _Pirrauru_ we shall be guided by this information.

[310] For a detailed enumeration and description of all
tribes among whom practices of the _Pirrauru_ type exist,
see Howitt, _J.A.I._, xx. pp. 31-34. In this article, which
is nearly exactly reproduced in Howitt's last work (_Nat.
Tr._), we possess, undoubtedly, the best information about
the _Pirrauru_ custom. In another place (_Folk-Lore_,
xviii. p. 184), Howitt assigns a still wider area to the
_Pirrauru_ practice. "Altogether, Dr. Howitt reckons that
the tribes which practised a form of group marriage like
the _Pirrauru_ of the Dieri must have occupied an area of
some 500,000 square miles, extending for a distance of
850 miles from Oodnadatta, the northern boundary of the
Urabunna, to the eastern frontier of the Dieri, or of the
Mardala tribe between the Flinders Range and the Barrier
Range."--Frazer, _Tot. and Exog._, i. p. 371.

[311] We have reasons to doubt whether these authors were
as well informed about the Urabunna tribe as about the
Arunta nation. Anyhow, the information they give about the
_Piraungaru_ custom is much inferior as well in respect of
quantity as quality (the inconsistency of their statement
is shown above) than that about the Arunta, and the
conclusions they draw therefrom are not quite in accord
with the facts as they relate them (see below, p. 118).

It is first to be noted that the custom in question exists side by side with individual marriage. We find this expressly stated in three places by Howitt.[312] But besides these merely verbal assertions of authorities, we have much better proofs of the assertion in the facts related by them concerning the _Pirrauru_ customs. From these facts it clearly appears that individual marriage existed quite independently of the _Pirrauru_ relation, and that it was even only slightly affected by this relation. We shall enumerate the most important features of the _Pirrauru_ custom of which we are informed, occasionally remarking under each heading what is the difference between marriage and the _Pirrauru_ relation. It will appear that many of the factors that constitute marriage are completely absent in that relation, and that others play in each quite a different rôle.

[312] _J.A.I._, xx. p. 53, _Smith. Rep._, p. 807, _Trans.
R.S.V._, p. 100. In _J.A.I._, xx. p. 53, Howitt says that
among all these tribes there are two forms of marriage.
"There is a marriage ... which may be spoken of as
'individual marriage.'" "There is also a marital relation
existing between a man and a number of women, or between
a woman and number of men. This latter connection may be
spoken of as group marriage." We see that Howitt uses here
the word "marriage" only to design the individual union,
and speaking about the _Pirrauru_, correctly employs the
words "marital relations." This sounds quite differently
from the repeated denial that the "individual marriage does
not exist in the tribes" made by Spencer and Gillen (_Nat.
Tr._, pp. 63, 109; _Nor. Tr._, p. 140). And again Howitt
says (_Trans. R.S.V._, p. 115), "Individual marriage in
Australian tribes has been evident to every one, but beside
it exist also group marriages."

1. In the first place, let us ask how was the _Pirrauru_ relation brought about. We are informed that on the occasion of large tribal gatherings such as corroborees, invitation gatherings, etc., when the whole tribe was present, the old men and the heads of the totems, assembled in camp council, decide which men and women should be allotted to each other. The result of this decision is then publicly announced.[313] Now we know[314] that the individual or Tippa Malku marriage is brought about in quite a different way: the girl is promised as an infant to her future husband. Such an infant betrothal is usually accompanied by exchange of females; and the decision lies in the hands of the girl's family (her mother's brother). We see that the mode of obtaining the individual Tippa Malku wife is quite different from the way in which the _Pirrauru_ relationship is established; and we see also that the latter does not show any of the characteristics which enforce and express the individual character of marriage.

[313] Howitt, _J.A.I._, xx. p. 56. _Smith. Rep._, p. 807.

[314] See above, p. 41.

Undoubtedly it has its legal aspect, for it rests on the authority of the camp council of old men, which seems to be the only form of tribal authority known in these tribes. The old men seem also to keep an eye on the _Pirrauru_ connections in their subsequent course (see below under 5). These relations, therefore, bear, thanks to this sanction of the tribal elders, the character of validity and legality, and are to a certain degree compulsory. (How far they are compulsory in the case of the husband of the allotted woman, see below under 6); but they involve neither the mutual obligation of two families, nor a period of long engagement, nor any factors expressing collective ideas of the individuality of mutual appropriation of a man and a woman.[315]

[315] Collective ideas which closely correspond to our
ideas of monogamy, of monopolization of the marital
rights and relationship in the widest sense of the word;
special stress being laid on the point, that by the word
"marital" relations I do not mean sexual relations, either
exclusively or even in the first place.

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]

[316] Points to which attention was drawn by Mr. N. W. Thomas,
_loc. cit._, p. 129.

[317] Howitt, _Nat. Tr._, p. 187. _J.A.I._, xx. p. 56.
Spencer and Gillen, _Nor. Tr._, p. 73; _Nat. Tr._, p. 64.
Howitt, _Smith. Rep._, p. 197.

[318] The same was argued from a different point of view by
Mr. N. W. Thomas, _loc. cit._, pp. 127 _sqq._

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.

[319] _J.A.I._, xx. p. 56.

[320] Howitt, _Nat. Tr._, pp. 181, 187.

[321] _Ibid._, pp. 181, 182, 187.

[322] See below, pp. 255 _sqq._

[323] Howitt says, explicitly (_Nat. Tr._, p. 184), that
"the leading men in the tribe have usually more Tippa Malku
and _Pirrauru_ wives than other men." The Pinnaru, Jalina
Piramurana had over a dozen wives, and to get one of them
as _Pirrauru_ was a great honour for a man.