Dr. Howitis Defence of Group- Marriage. 299
I have already pointed out that to use the term " group- marriage " o{ pirraiiru, is confusing. Pirraiiru is (i) not a necessary relation in any single case ; (2) is entered upon by a definite ceremony; (3) is entered upon by individuals, no more and no less than the tippa-nialku relation ; and (4) is for the woman, so far as we know, subsequent to tippa- vialktL.
The other group-marriage (modified promiscuity) is (i) held to be a necessary relationship, exactly as is 110a ; (2) it is consequently entered into by no ceremony, collec- tive or (3) otherwise ; and (4) is of necessity a relation antecedent to all marital relationships. In a sense, of course, the people standing in the relation of pirratiru are a group ; the relationship is a combination of poly- andry and polygyny, and if Dr. Howitt chooses to say that either or both of the latter are also group-marriage, his assertion is just as true as it is of pirrmint ; but the group-marriage thus asserted to exist has in neither case any relation to the assumed modified promiscuity to which the name of group-marriage is also applied.
In saying that pirrauru is " defined by the terms of relationship," Dr. Howitt seems to mean no more than that the pirraurus must also be noa to each other, exactly as must the tippa-malkii husband and wife. But any inference which can be drawn from the one case can also be drawn from the other. That a man may marry only such women as are marriageable proves no more in the case of pirrauru than it does in the case of polygyny, or of individual marriage, tippa-malku or otherwise.
By a singular piece of reasoning Dr. Howitt goes on to infer that group-marriage must have existed when the group-terms were invented. This conclusion does not follow from his argument as to pirrauru, for I have shown how far pirraiiru is from resembling the assumed group- marriage. In fact. Dr. Howitt himself admits as much in his next paragraph (p. 185), where he speaks of his
