common for the older men, while observing the restriction, practically to engross among them all the women of the tribe. This obtains "especially where group-marriage is still in the ascendant," or, more accurately, where it has not yet been effaced by individual marriage. "But this monopoly is not exclusive; at certain times and on certain occasions the old communal right revives in favour of the younger men, or of friendly strangers visiting the tribe." Mr. Howitt, whom I am quoting, adds significantly: "It may be even more correct to say that the old communal rights have never ceased to exist, but that the older men claim the right of withholding them from the younger ones, and granting them at intervals."[1] The observation throws a flood of light upon the meaning of the precept against interfering with girls and women. Like the rest of the exhortations, it is intended to uphold and increase the authority of the elders, and to conserve the institutions of the tribe. Beyond that, its object is to maintain the grip of the elders upon the women.
Owing probably to their isolation the Kurnai differed somewhat in their marital institutions from other tribes. They had evolved them further in the direction of monogamy. For the number of wives a man might have, though in theory unlimited, was in practice usually confined to one, except where, as often happened, his wife's sister had been given to him by their father, or where, by the operation of the Levirate, his brother's widow fell to him. Corresponding with this limitation, the husband expected strict fidelity on the part of his wives, the Kurnai being much more jealous than most natives. The precept in some form seems universal. Its exact form among the Kurnai is left by Mr. Howitt to be guessed at. Among the northern tribes of whom Mr. Palmer writes, it is evident that wife-stealing,
- ↑ Fison and Howitt, p. 354. The entire chapter should be read; also the chapter on Marriage in Brough Smyth's Aborigines of Victoria.
