As a comparison I take the Kurnai tribe (Gippsland)

The same diagram will serve for the marriages
But there is no noa relationship. The same principle is however
applied to localities. For instance 1m and 2m belong to a locality x,
2 and 6 belong to another locality y. [The- crossed out] x and y are exogamous
and intermarrying. 1 and 5 are brothers own, or tribal, 2 and 6 are
sisters own or tribal. 1 + 2 became husband and wife by the system of
marriage by elopement which is peculiar to the Kurnai. In this tribe
[1 calls - crossed out] there is only individual marriage, [1 is the - crossed out] 2 is the individual wife
of 1, and 6 of 5; 1 calls 2 maiau (wife) and 2 calls 1 bra (husband); so
also 5 and 6 are bra and maiau. But 1 and 6 are also titularly bra and
maiau; as are 5 and 2. Yet there are no marital relations between

2 is the yukan [of - crossed out] (mother) of 7, and 6 of 8; but 2 is the titular yukan of
8 and 6 of 7; [7 and eight 8 are brothers- crossed out] In the analagous way 1 and
5 are respectively both the mungan (father) of 7 and 8.

The men 7 and 8 are brothers because they have the same
parents. These relationships are just as real to the Kurnai
as are the similar relationships to the Dieri. The difference is however
that with the Dieri they are the actual relationships of the existing group-marriage
which with the Kurnai the terms do not fit the marital [or - crossed out] filial or
fraternal relatives at all.

Though I say that the latter are the vestigial remains of a former
condition of group marriage.

The Kurnai terms represent those of all the tribes of South East

Notes and Questions

Nobody has written a note for this page yet

Please sign in to write a note for this page