314 Australian Marriage Customs.
It is interesting to learn that maian-bra are post- matrimonial ; but that they are so in no way invalidates my assertion that the maian-bra group corresponds to the 7ioa group, not to the pirraurii circle. For, as Dr. Howitt admits, the pirrauru group does not contain all the tribal brothers or sisters of a given member of it ; but the term maian is applied to all tribal brothers and sisters of the husband, the term bra to all sisters of the wife. Will Dr. Howitt tell us wherein they differ from the kinship terms which are limited by the noa group }
I may add that Dr. Howitt's point that maian-bra is post-matrimonial tells against himself with equal force. Or does he seriously assert that pirraurii is subsequent to individual marriage and a necessary corollary of it ? If not, what is the point of saying that my contention as to maian-bra is wrong, because maian-bra are, like brother-in-law and sister-in-law among us, terms resulting from and acquired at individual marriage ? Not only so, but how can Dr. Howitt assert that maian-bra mean husband and wife and that they point to a period of group marriage, when the wife applies the same term maian to her husband and to his sister? Does Dr. Howitt maintain that the wife was originally the wife of her husband's sister} If not, it is clearly not conclusive of the prior existence of group marriage that other men besides the husband are called maian.
(5) On p. 179 Dr. Howitt asserts that the kandri ceremony announces the betrothal of a male and female 110a. On p. 176 he assures us that people who are made tippa-malku cannot be again betrothed ; yet in dealing with the kandri ceremony (p. 179) he asserts the very reverse. It is probably merely another case of loose terminology. However this may be, the betrothal cere- mony to which he invites my attention has absolutely no relation to the kandri as described in N.T.S.E.A., p. 181. There it is represented that the individual
