initial commit of ebook 44728HEADmain

14 files changed, 14952 insertions, 0 deletions

diff --git a/old/44728-0.txt b/old/44728-0.txt
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..5912b0c
--- /dev/null
+++ b/old/44728-0.txt
@@ -0,0 +1,3445 @@
+Project Gutenberg's Kinship and Social Organisation, by W. H. R. Rivers
+
+This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere at no cost and with
+almost no restrictions whatsoever.  You may copy it, give it away or
+re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included
+with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org/license
+
+
+Title: Kinship and Social Organisation
+
+Author: W. H. R. Rivers
+
+Release Date: January 22, 2014 [EBook #44728]
+
+Language: English
+
+Character set encoding: UTF-8
+
+*** START OF THIS PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK KINSHIP AND SOCIAL ORGANISATION ***
+
+
+
+
+Produced by Henry Flower and the Online Distributed
+Proofreading Team at http://www.pgdp.net (This file was
+produced from images generously made available by The
+Internet Archive/Canadian Libraries)
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+  STUDIES IN ECONOMIC AND POLITICAL SCIENCE
+
+  Edited by the HON. W. PEMBER REEVES
+
+  _Director of the London School of Economics and Political Science_
+
+  No. 36 in the Series of Monographs by Writers connected
+  with the London School of Economics and Political Science.
+
+
+  KINSHIP AND SOCIAL ORGANISATION
+
+
+
+
+  Kinship and
+
+  Social Organisation
+
+
+  By
+
+  W. H. R. RIVERS, M.D., F.R.S.,
+
+  Fellow of St. John’s College, Cambridge
+
+
+  LONDON
+  CONSTABLE & CO LTD
+  1914
+
+
+
+
+CONTENTS
+
+
+                 PAGE
+
+  PREFACE        vii.
+
+  LECTURE I         1
+
+  LECTURE II       28
+
+  LECTURE III      60
+
+  INDEX            95
+
+
+
+
+PREFACE.
+
+
+These lectures were delivered at the London School of Economics in May
+of the present year. They are largely based on experience gained in the
+work of the Percy Sladen Trust Expedition to Melanesia of 1908, and
+give a simplified record of social conditions which will be described
+in detail in the full account of the work of that expedition.
+
+A few small additions and modifications have been made since the
+lectures were given, some of these being due to suggestions made by
+Professor Westermarck and Dr. Malinowski in the discussions which
+followed the lectures. I am also indebted to Miss B. Freire-Marreco
+for allowing me to refer to unpublished material collected during her
+recent work among the Pueblo Indians of North America.
+
+  W. H. R. RIVERS.
+
+  St. John’s College,
+  Cambridge.
+  _November 19th, 1913._
+
+
+
+
+KINSHIP AND SOCIAL
+
+ORGANISATION
+
+
+
+
+LECTURE I
+
+
+The aim of these lectures is to demonstrate the close connection which
+exists between methods of denoting relationship or kinship and forms
+of social organisation, including those based on different varieties
+of the institution of marriage. In other words, my aim will be to show
+that the terminology of relationship has been rigorously determined
+by social conditions and that, if this position has been established
+and accepted, systems of relationship furnish us with a most valuable
+instrument in studying the history of social institutions.
+
+In the controversy of the present and of recent times, it is the
+special mode of denoting relationship known as the classificatory
+system which has formed the chief subject of discussion. It is in
+connection with this system that there have arisen the various vexed
+questions which have so excited the interest--I might almost say the
+passions--of sociologists during the last quarter of a century.
+
+I am afraid it would be dangerous to assume your familiarity with this
+system, and I must therefore begin with a brief description of its
+main characters. The essential feature of the classificatory system,
+that to which it owes its name, is the application of its terms, not
+to single individual persons, but to classes of relatives which may
+often be very large. Objections have been made to the use of the term
+“classificatory” on the ground that our own terms of relationship also
+apply to classes of persons; the term “brother,” for instance, to all
+the male children of the same father and mother, the term “uncle” to
+all the brothers of the father and mother as well as to the husband
+of an aunt, while the term “cousin” may denote a still larger class.
+It is, of course, true that many of our own terms of relationship
+apply to classes of persons, but in the systems to which the word
+“classificatory” is usually applied, the classificatory principle
+applies far more widely, and in some cases even, more logically and
+consistently. In the most complete form of the classificatory system
+there is not one single term of relationship the use of which tells
+us that reference is being made to one person and to one person only,
+whereas in our own system there are six such terms, viz., husband,
+wife, father, mother, father-in-law and mother-in-law. In those systems
+in which the classificatory principle is carried to its extreme degree
+every term is applied to a class of persons. The term “father,” for
+instance, is applied to all those whom the father would call brother,
+and to all the husbands of those whom the mother calls sister,
+both brother and sister being used in a far wider sense than among
+ourselves. In some forms of the classificatory system the term “father”
+is also used for all those whom the mother would call brother, and for
+all the husbands of those whom the father would call sister, and in
+other systems the application of the term may be still more extensive.
+Similarly, the term used for the wife may be applied to all those whom
+the wife would call sister and to the wives of all those whom the
+speaker calls brother, brother and sister again being used in a far
+wider sense than in our own language.
+
+The classificatory system has many other features which mark it off
+more or less sharply from our own mode of denoting relationship, but I
+do not think it would be profitable to attempt a full description at
+this stage of our enquiry. As I have said, the object of these lectures
+is to show how the various features of the classificatory system have
+arisen out of, and can therefore be explained historically by, social
+facts. If you are not already acquainted with these features, you will
+learn to know them the more easily if at the same time you learn how
+they have come into existence.
+
+I will begin with a brief history of the subject. So long as it was
+supposed that all the peoples of the world denoted relationship in the
+same way, namely, that which is customary among ourselves, there was
+no problem. There was no reason why the subject should have awakened
+any interest, and so far as I have been able to find, it is only since
+the discovery of the classificatory system of relationship that the
+problem now before us was ever raised. I imagine that, if students ever
+thought about the matter at all, it must have seemed obvious that the
+way in which they and the other known peoples of the world used terms
+of relationship was conditioned and determined by the social relations
+which the terms denoted.
+
+The state of affairs became very different as soon as it was known that
+many peoples of the world use terms of relationship in a manner, and
+according to rules, so widely different from our own that they seem to
+belong to an altogether different order, a difference well illustrated
+by the confusion which is apt to arise when we use English words in
+the translation of classificatory terms or classificatory terms as the
+equivalents of our own. The difficulty or impossibility of conforming
+to complete truth and reality, when we attempt this task, is the best
+witness to the fundamental difference between the two modes of denoting
+relationship.
+
+I do not know of any discovery in the whole range of science which
+can be more certainly put to the credit of one man than that of the
+classificatory system of relationship by Lewis Morgan. By this I mean,
+not merely that he was the first to point out clearly the existence of
+this mode of denoting relationship, but that it was he who collected
+the vast mass of material by which the essential characters of the
+system were demonstrated, and it was he who was the first to recognise
+the great theoretical importance of his new discovery. It is the denial
+of this importance by his contemporaries and successors which furnishes
+the best proof of the credit which is due to him for the discovery.
+The very extent of the material he collected[1] has probably done much
+to obstruct the recognition of the importance of his work. It is a
+somewhat discouraging thought that, if Morgan had been less industrious
+and had amassed a smaller collection of material which could have been
+embodied in a more available form, the value of his work would probably
+have been far more widely recognised than it is to-day. The volume
+of his material is, however, only a subsidiary factor in the process
+which has led to the neglect or rejection of the importance of Morgan’s
+discovery. The chief cause of the neglect is one for which Morgan must
+himself largely bear the blame. He was not content to demonstrate, as
+he might to some extent have done from his own material, the close
+connection between the terminology of the classificatory system of
+relationship and forms of social organisation. There can be little
+doubt that he recognised this connection, but he was not content to
+demonstrate the dependence of the terminology of relationship upon
+social forms the existence of which was already known, or which were
+capable of demonstration with the material at his disposal. He passed
+over all these early stages of the argument, and proceeded directly to
+refer the origin of the terminology to forms of social organisation
+which were not known to exist anywhere on the earth and of which there
+was no direct evidence in the past. When, further, the social condition
+which Morgan was led to formulate was one of general promiscuity
+developing into group-marriage, conditions bitterly repugnant to the
+sentiments of most civilised persons, it is not surprising that he
+aroused a mass of heated opposition which led, not merely to widespread
+rejection of his views, but also to the neglect of lessons to be learnt
+from his new discovery which must have received general recognition
+long before this, if they had not been obscured by other issues.
+
+[1] _Systems of Consanguinity and Affinity of the Human Family:
+Smithsonian Contributions to Knowledge_, vol. xvii.; Washington, 1871.
+
+The first to take up the cudgels in opposition to Morgan was our own
+pioneer in the study of the early forms of human society, John Ferguson
+McLennan.[2] He criticised the views of Morgan severely and often
+justly, and then pointing out, as was then believed to be the case,
+that no duties or rights were connected with the relationships of the
+classificatory system, he concluded that the terms formed merely a
+code of courtesies and ceremonial addresses for social intercourse.
+Those who have followed him have usually been content to repeat the
+conclusion that the classificatory system is nothing more than a
+body of mutual salutations and terms of address. They have failed to
+see that it still remains necessary to explain how the terms of the
+classificatory system came to be used in mutual salutation. They have
+failed to recognise that they were either rejecting the principle of
+determinism in sociology, or were only putting back to a conveniently
+remote distance the consideration of the problem how and why the
+classificatory terms came to be used in the way now customary among so
+many peoples of the earth.
+
+[2] _Studies in Ancient History_, 1st series, 1876, p. 331.
+
+This aspect of the problem, which has been neglected or put on one
+side by the followers of McLennan, was not so treated by McLennan
+himself. As we should expect from the general character of his work,
+McLennan clearly recognised that the classificatory system must have
+been determined by social conditions, and he tried to show how it might
+have arisen as the result of the change from the Nair to the Tibetan
+form of polyandry.[3] He even went so far as to formulate varieties
+of this process by means of which there might have been produced the
+chief varieties of the classificatory system, the existence of which
+had been demonstrated by Morgan. It is quite clear that McLennan had no
+doubts about the necessity of tracing back the social institution of
+the classificatory system of relationship to social causes, a necessity
+which has been ignored or even explicitly denied by those who have
+followed him in rejecting the views of Morgan. It is one of the many
+unfortunate consequences of McLennan’s belief in the importance of
+polyandry in the history of human society that it has helped to prevent
+his followers from seeing the social importance of the classificatory
+system. They have failed to see that the classificatory system may be
+the result neither of promiscuity nor of polyandry, and yet have been
+determined, both in its general character and in its details, by forms
+of social organisation.
+
+[3] _Op. cit._, p. 373.
+
+Since the time of Morgan and McLennan few have attempted to deal with
+the question in any comprehensive manner. The problem has inevitably
+been involved in the controversy which has raged between the advocates
+of the original promiscuity or the primitive monogamy of mankind,
+but most of the former have been ready to accept Morgan’s views
+blindly, while the latter have been content to try to explain away
+the importance of conclusions derived from the classificatory system
+without attempting any real study of the evidence. On the side of
+Morgan there has been one exception in the person of Professor J.
+Kohler,[4] who has recognised the lines on which the problem must be
+studied, while on the other side there has been, so far as I am aware,
+only one writer who has recognised that the evidence from the nature
+of the classificatory system of relationship cannot be ignored or
+belittled, but must be faced and some explanation alternative to that
+of Morgan provided.
+
+[4] _Zur Urgeschichte der Ehe_, Stuttgart, 1897 (reprinted from
+_Zeitsch. f. vergleich. Rechtswiss._, 1897, xii., 187).
+
+This attempt was made four years ago by Professor Kroeber,[5] of the
+University of California. The line he takes is absolutely to reject
+the view common to both Morgan and McLennan that the nature of the
+classificatory system has been determined by social conditions.
+He explicitly rejects the view that the mode of using terms of
+relationship depends on social causes, and puts forward as the
+alternative that they are conditioned by causes purely linguistic and
+psychological.
+
+[5] _Journ. Roy. Anth. Inst._, 1909, xxxix, 77.
+
+It is not quite easy to understand what is meant by the linguistic
+causation of terms of relationship. In the summary at the end of
+his paper Kroeber concludes that “they (terms of relationship) are
+determined primarily by language.” Terms of relationship, however, are
+elements of language, so that Kroeber’s proposition is that elements
+of language are determined primarily by language. In so far as this
+proposition has any meaning, it must be that, in the process of seeking
+the origin of linguistic phenomena, it is our business to ignore any
+but linguistic facts. It would follow that the student of the subject
+should seek the antecedents of linguistic phenomena in other linguistic
+phenomena, and put on one side as not germane to his task all reference
+to the objects and relations which the words denote and connote.
+
+Professor Kroeber’s alternative proposition is that terms of
+relationship reflect psychology, not sociology, or, in other words,
+that the way in which terms of relationship are used depends on a
+chain of causation in which psychological processes are the direct
+antecedents of this use. I will try to make his meaning clear by means
+of an instance which he himself gives. He says that at the present time
+there is a tendency among ourselves to speak of the brother-in-law as
+a brother; in other words, we tend to class the brother-in-law and the
+brother together in the nomenclature of our own system of relationship.
+He supposes that we do this because there is a psychological similarity
+between the two relationships which leads us to class them together in
+our customary nomenclature. I shall return both to this and other of
+his examples later.
+
+We have now seen that the opponents of Morgan have taken up two main
+positions which it is possible to attack: one, that the classificatory
+system is nothing more than a body of terms of address; the other,
+that it and other modes of denoting relationship are determined by
+psychological and not by sociological causes. I propose to consider
+these two positions in turn.
+
+Morgan himself was evidently deeply impressed by the function of the
+classificatory system of relationship as a body of salutations. His
+own experience was derived from the North American Indians, and he
+notes the exclusive use of terms of relationship in address, a usage
+so habitual that an omission to recognise a relative in this manner
+would amount almost to an affront. Morgan also points out, as one
+motive for the custom, the presence of a reluctance to utter personal
+names. McLennan had to rely entirely on the evidence collected by
+Morgan, and there can be no doubt that he was greatly influenced by
+the stress Morgan himself laid on the function of the classificatory
+terms as mutual salutations. That in rude societies certain relatives
+have social functions definitely assigned to them by custom was
+known in Morgan’s time, and I think it might even then have been
+discovered that the relationships which carried these functions were
+of the classificatory kind. It is, however, only by more recent work,
+beginning with that of Howitt, of Spencer and Gillen, and of Roth
+in Australia, and of the Cambridge Expedition to Torres Straits,
+that the great importance of the functions of relatives through
+the classificatory system has been forced upon the attention of
+sociologists. The social and ceremonial proceedings of the Australian
+aborigines abound in features in which special functions are performed
+by such relatives as the elder brother or the brother of the mother,
+while in Torres Straits I was able to record large groups of duties,
+privileges and restrictions associated with different classificatory
+relationships.
+
+Further work has shown that widely, though not universally, the
+nomenclature of the classificatory system carries with it a number of
+clearly defined social practices. One who applies a given term of
+relationship to another person has to behave towards that person in
+certain definite ways. He has to perform certain duties towards him,
+and enjoys certain privileges, and is subject to certain restrictions
+in his conduct in relation to him. These duties, privileges and
+restrictions vary greatly in number among different peoples, but
+wherever they exist, I know of no exception to their importance and
+to the regard in which they are held by all members of the community.
+You doubtless know of many examples of such functions associated with
+relationship, and I need give only one example.
+
+In the Banks Islands the term used between two brothers-in-law is
+_wulus_, _walus_, or _walui_, and a man who applies one of these terms
+to another may not utter his name, nor may the two behave familiarly
+towards one another in any way. In one island, Merlav, these relatives
+have all their possessions in common, and it is the duty of one to
+help the other in any difficulty, to warn him in danger, and, if need
+be, to die with him. If one dies, the other has to help to support
+his widow and has to abstain from certain foods. Further, there are
+a number of curious regulations in which the sanctity of the head
+plays a great part. A man must take nothing from above the head of his
+brother-in-law, nor may he even eat a bird which has flown over his
+head. A person has only to say of an object “That is the head of your
+brother-in-law,” and the person addressed will have to desist from the
+use of the object. If the object is edible, it may not be eaten; if it
+is one which is being manufactured, such as a mat, the person addressed
+will have to cease from his work if the object be thus called the head
+of his brother-in-law. He will only be allowed to finish it on making
+compensation, not to the person who has prevented the work by reference
+to the head, but to the brother-in-law whose head had been mentioned.
+Ludicrous as some of these customs may seem to us, they are very far
+from being so to those who practise them. They show clearly the very
+important part taken in the lives of those who use the classificatory
+system by the social functions associated with relationship. As I
+have said, these functions are not universally associated with the
+classificatory system, but they are very general in many parts of the
+world and only need more careful investigation to be found even more
+general and more important than appears at present.
+
+Let us now look at our own system of relationship from this point
+of view. Two striking features present themselves. First, the great
+paucity of definite social functions associated with relationship,
+and secondly, the almost complete limitation of such functions to
+those relationships which apply only to individual persons and not
+to classes of persons. Of such relationships as cousin, uncle, aunt,
+father-in-law, or mother-in-law there may be said to be no definite
+social functions. A school-boy believes it is the duty of his uncle
+to tip him, but this is about as near as one can get to any social
+obligation on the part of this relative.
+
+The same will be found to hold good to a large extent if we turn to
+those social regulations which have been embodied in our laws. It is
+only in the case of the transmission of hereditary rank and of the
+property of a person dying intestate that more distant relatives are
+brought into any legal relationship with one another, and then only
+if there is an absence of nearer relatives. It is only when forced to
+do so by exceptional circumstances that the law recognises any of the
+persons to whom the more classificatory of our terms of relationship
+apply. If we pay regard to the social functions associated with
+relationship, it is our own system, rather than the classificatory,
+which is open to the reproach that its relationships carry into them no
+rights and duties.
+
+In the course of the recent work of the Percy Sladen Trust Expedition
+in Melanesia and Polynesia I have been able to collect a body of facts
+which bring out, even more clearly than has hitherto been recognised,
+the dependence of classificatory terms on social rights.[6] The
+classificatory systems of Oceania vary greatly in character. In some
+places relationships are definitely distinguished in nomenclature
+which are classed with other relationships elsewhere. Thus, while
+most Melanesian and some Polynesian systems have a definite term for
+the mother’s brother and for the class of relatives whom the mother
+calls brother, in other systems this relative is classed with, and
+is denoted by, the same term as the father. The point to which I now
+call your attention is that there is a very close correlation between
+the presence of a special term for this relative and the presence of
+special functions attached to the relationship.
+
+[6] The full account of these and other facts cited in these lectures
+will appear shortly in a work on _The History of Melanesian Society_,
+to be published by the Cambridge University Press.
+
+In Polynesia, both the Hawaiians and the inhabitants of Niue class the
+mother’s brother with the father, and in neither place was I able to
+discover that there were any special duties, privileges or restrictions
+ascribed to the mother’s brother. In the Polynesian islands of Tonga
+and Tikopia, on the other hand, where there are special terms for
+the mother’s brother, this relative has also special functions. The
+only place in Melanesia where I failed to find a special term for the
+mother’s brother was in the western Solomon Islands, and that was
+also the only part of Melanesia where I failed to find any trace of
+special social functions ascribed to this relative. I do not know of
+such functions in Santa Cruz, but my information about the system of
+that island is derived from others, and further research will almost
+certainly show that they are present.
+
+In my own experience, then, among two different peoples, I have been
+able to establish a definite correlation between the presence of
+a term of relationship and special functions associated with the
+relationship. Information kindly given to me by Father Egidi, however,
+seems to show that the correlation among the Melanesians is not
+complete. In Mekeo, the mother’s brother has the duty of putting on the
+first perineal garment of his nephew, but he has no special term and is
+classed with the father. Among the Kuni, on the other hand, there is
+a definite term for the mother’s brother distinguishing him from the
+father, but yet he has not, so far as Father Egidi knows, any special
+functions.
+
+Both in Melanesia and Polynesia a similar correlation comes out in
+connection with other relationships, the most prominent exception
+being the absence of a special term for the father’s sister in the
+Banks Islands, although this relative has very definite and important
+functions. In these islands the father’s sister is classed with the
+mother as _vev_ or _veve_, but even here, where the generalisation
+seems to break down, it does not do so completely, for the father’s
+sister is distinguished from the mother as _veve vus rawe_, the mother
+who kills a pig, as opposed to the simple _veve_ used for the mother
+and her sisters.
+
+There is thus definite evidence, not only for the association of
+classificatory terms of relationship with special social functions, but
+from one part of the world we now have evidence which shows that the
+presence or absence of special terms is largely dependent on whether
+there are or are not such functions. We may take it as established that
+the terms of the classificatory system are not, as McLennan supposed,
+merely terms of address and modes of mutual salutation. McLennan came
+to this conclusion because he believed that the classificatory terms
+were associated with no such functions as those of which we now have
+abundant evidence. He asks, “What duties or rights are affected by the
+relationships comprised in the classificatory system?” and answers
+himself according to the knowledge at his disposal, “Absolutely
+none.”[7] This passage makes it clear that, if McLennan had known what
+we know to-day, he would never have taken up the line of attack upon
+Morgan’s position in which he has had, and still has, so many followers.
+
+[7] _Op. cit._, p. 366.
+
+       *       *       *       *       *
+
+I can now turn to the second line of attack, that which boldly discards
+the origin of the terminology of relationship in social conditions, and
+seeks for its explanation in psychology. The line of argument I propose
+to follow is first to show that many details of classificatory systems
+have been directly determined by social factors. If that task can be
+accomplished, we shall have firm ground from which to take off in the
+attempt to refer the general characters of the classificatory and other
+systems of relationship to forms of social organisation. Any complete
+theory of a social institution has not only to account for its general
+characters, but also for its details, and I propose to begin with the
+details.
+
+I must first return to the history of the subject, and stay for a
+moment to ask why the line of argument I propose to follow was not
+adopted by Morgan and has been so largely disregarded by others.
+
+Whenever a new phenomenon is discovered in any part of the world, there
+is a natural tendency to seek for its parallels elsewhere. Morgan lived
+at a time when the unity of human culture was a topic which greatly
+excited ethnologists, and it is evident that one of his chief interests
+in the new discovery arose from the possibility it seemed to open of
+showing the uniformity of human culture. He hoped to demonstrate the
+uniformity of the classificatory system throughout the world, and he
+was content to observe certain broad varieties of the system and refer
+them to supposed stages in the history of human society. He paid but
+little attention to such varieties of the classificatory system as are
+illustrated in his own record of North American systems, and seems to
+have overlooked entirely certain features of the Indian and Oceanic
+systems he recorded, which might have enabled him to demonstrate the
+close relation between the terminology of relationship and social
+institutions. Morgan’s neglect to attend to these differences must
+be ascribed in some measure to the ignorance of rude forms of social
+organisation which existed when he wrote, but the failure of others
+to recognise the dependence of the details of classificatory systems
+upon social institutions is rather to be ascribed to the absence
+of interest in the subject induced by their adherence to McLennan’s
+primary error. Those who believe that the classificatory system is
+merely an unimportant code of mutual salutations are not likely to
+attend to relatively minute differences in the customs they despise.
+The credit of having been the first fully to recognise the social
+importance of these differences belongs to J. Kohler. In his book “Zur
+Urgeschichte der Ehe,” which I have already mentioned, he studied
+minutely the details of many different systems, and showed that they
+could be explained by certain forms of marriage practised by those who
+use the terms. I propose now to deal with classificatory terminology
+from this point of view. My procedure will be first to show that
+the details which distinguish different forms of the classificatory
+system from one another have been directly determined by the social
+institutions of those who use the systems, and only when this has been
+established, shall I attempt to bring the more general characters
+of the classificatory and other systems into relation with social
+institutions.
+
+I am able to carry out this task more fully than has hitherto been
+possible because I have collected in Melanesia a number of systems of
+relationship which differ far more widely from one another than those
+recorded in Morgan’s book or others which have been collected since.
+Some of the features which characterise these Melanesian systems will
+be wholly new to ethnologists, not having yet been recorded elsewhere,
+but I propose to begin with a long familiar mode of terminology which
+accompanies that widely distributed custom known as the cross-cousin
+marriage. In the more frequent form of this marriage a man marries the
+daughter either of his mother’s brother or of his father’s sister; more
+rarely his choice is limited to one of these relatives.
+
+Such a marriage will have certain definite consequences. Let us take a
+case in which a man marries the daughter of his mother’s brother, as is
+represented in the following diagram:
+
+[Illustration: DIAGRAM 1[8]
+
+[8] In this and other diagrams capital letters are used to represent
+men and the smaller letters women.
+
+      +----------------------------+
+      |                            |
+  B = a                            A = b
+    |                                |
+    |                     +----------+----------+
+    |                     |          |          |
+    C =================== d          E          f
+]
+
+One consequence of the marriage between _C_ and _d_ will be that _A_,
+who before the marriage of _C_ was only his mother’s brother, now
+becomes also his wife’s father, while _b_, who before the marriage was
+the mother’s brother’s wife of _C_, now becomes his wife’s mother.
+Reciprocally, _C_, who before his marriage had been the sister’s
+son of _A_ and the husband’s sister’s son of _b_, now becomes their
+son-in-law. Further, _E_ and _f_, the other children of _A_ and _b_,
+who before the marriage had been only the cousins of _C_, now become
+his wife’s brother and sister.
+
+Similarly, _a_, who before the marriage of _d_ was her father’s sister,
+now becomes also her husband’s mother, and _B_, her father’s sister’s
+husband, comes to stand in the relation of husband’s father; if _C_
+should have any brothers and sisters, these cousins now become her
+brothers- and sisters-in-law.
+
+The combinations of relationship which follow from the marriage of a
+man with the daughter of his mother’s brother thus differ for a man and
+a woman, but if, as is usual, a man may marry the daughter either of
+his mother’s brother or of his father’s sister, these combinations of
+relationship will hold good for both men and women.
+
+Another and more remote consequence of the cross-cousin marriage, if
+this become an established institution, is that the relationships
+of mother’s brother and father’s sister’s husband will come to be
+combined in one and the same person, and that there will be a similar
+combination of the relationships of father’s sister and mother’s
+brother’s wife. If the cross-cousin marriage be the habitual custom,
+_B_ and _b_ in Diagram 1 will be brother and sister; in consequence
+_A_ will be at once the mother’s brother and the father’s sister’s
+husband of _C_, while _b_ will be both his father’s sister and his
+mother’s brother’s wife. Since, however, the mother’s brother is also
+the father-in-law, and the father’s sister the mother-in-law, three
+different relationships will be combined in each case. Through the
+cross-cousin marriage the relationships of mother’s brother, father’s
+sister’s husband and father-in-law will be combined in one and the same
+person, and the relationships of father’s sister, mother’s brother’s
+wife and mother-in-law will be similarly combined.
+
+In many places where we know the cross-cousin marriage to be an
+established institution, we find just those common designations which I
+have just described. Thus, in the Mbau dialect of Fiji the word _vungo_
+is applied to the mother’s brother, the husband of the father’s sister
+and the father-in-law. The word _nganei_ is used for the father’s
+sister, the mother’s brother’s wife and the mother-in-law. The term
+_tavale_ is used by a man for the son of the mother’s brother or of
+the father’s sister as well as for the wife’s brother and the sister’s
+husband. _Ndavola_ is used not only for the child of the mother’s
+brother or father’s sister when differing in sex from the speaker, but
+this word is also used by a man for his wife’s sister and his brother’s
+wife, and by a woman for her husband’s brother and her sister’s
+husband. Every one of these details of the Mbau system is the direct
+and inevitable consequence of the cross-cousin marriage, if it become
+an established and habitual practice.
+
+This Fijian system does not stand alone in Melanesia. In the southern
+islands of the New Hebrides, in Tanna, Eromanga, Anaiteum and
+Aniwa, the cross-cousin marriage is practised and their systems of
+relationship have features similar to those of Fiji. Thus, in Anaiteum
+the word _matak_ applies to the mother’s brother, the father’s sister’s
+husband and the father-in-law, while the word _engak_ used for the
+cross-cousin is not only used for the wife’s sister and the brother’s
+wife, but also for the wife herself.
+
+Again, in the island of Guadalcanar in the Solomons the system of
+relationship is just such as would result from the cross-cousin
+marriage. One term, _nia_, is used for the mother’s brother and the
+wife’s father, and probably also for the father’s sister’s husband and
+the husband’s father, though my stay in the island was not long enough
+to enable me to collect sufficient genealogical material to demonstrate
+these points completely. Similarly, _tarunga_ includes in its
+connotation the father’s sister, the mother’s brother’s wife and the
+wife’s mother, and probably also the husband’s mother, while the word
+_iva_ is used for both cross-cousins and brothers- and sisters-in-law.
+Corresponding to this terminology there seemed to be no doubt that it
+was the custom for a man to marry the daughter of his mother’s brother
+or his father’s sister, though I was not able to demonstrate this form
+of marriage genealogically.
+
+These three regions, Fiji, the southern New Hebrides and Guadalcanar,
+are the only parts of Melanesia included in my survey where I found the
+practice of the cross-cousin marriage, and in all three regions the
+systems of relationship are just such as would follow from this form of
+marriage.
+
+Let us now turn to inquire how far it is possible to explain these
+features of Melanesian systems of relationship by psychological
+similarity. If it were not for the cross-cousin marriage, what
+can there be to give the mother’s brother a greater psychological
+similarity to the father-in-law than the father’s brother, or the
+father’s sister a greater similarity to the mother-in-law than the
+mother’s sister? Why should it be two special kinds of cousin who are
+classed with two special kinds of brother- and sister-in-law or with
+the husband or wife? Once granted the presence of the cross-cousin
+marriage, and there are psychological similarities certainly, though
+even here the matter is not quite straightforward from the point of
+view of the believer in their importance, for we have to do not merely
+with the similarity of two relatives, but with their identity, with
+the combination of two or more relationships in one and the same
+person. Even if we put this on one side, however, it remains to ask
+how it is possible to say that terms of relationship do not reflect
+sociology, if such psychological similarities are themselves the
+result of the cross-cousin marriage? What point is there in bringing
+in hypothetical psychological similarities which are only at the best
+intermediate links in the chain of causation connecting the terminology
+of relationship with antecedent social conditions?
+
+If you concede the causal relation between the characteristic features
+of a Fijian or Anaiteum or Guadalcanar system and the cross-cousin
+marriage, there can be no question that it is the cross-cousin marriage
+which is the antecedent and the features of the system of relationship
+the consequences. I do not suppose that, even in this subject, there
+will be found anyone to claim that the Fijians took to marrying their
+cross-cousins because such a marriage was suggested to them by the
+nature of their system of relationship. We have to do in this case,
+not merely with one or two features which might be the consequence of
+the cross-cousin marriage, but with a large and complicated meshwork
+of resemblances and differences in the nomenclature of relationship,
+each and every element of which follows directly from such a marriage,
+while no one of the systems I have considered possesses a single
+feature which is not compatible with social conditions arising out of
+this marriage. Apart from quantitative verification, I doubt whether it
+would be possible in the whole range of science to find a case where
+we can be more confident that one phenomenon has been conditioned by
+another. I feel almost guilty of wasting your time by going into it
+so fully, and should hardly have ventured to do so if this case of
+social causation had not been explicitly denied by one with so high a
+reputation as Professor Kroeber. I hope, however, that the argument
+will be useful as an example of the method I shall apply to other cases
+in which the evidence is less conclusive.
+
+The features of terminology which follow from the cross-cousin
+marriage were known to Morgan, being present in three of the systems
+he recorded from Southern India and in the Fijian system collected
+for him by Mr. Fison. The earliest reference[9] to the cross-cousin
+marriage which I have been able to discover is among the Gonds of
+Central India. This marriage was recorded in 1870, which, though
+earlier than the appearance of Morgan’s book, was after it had been
+accepted for publication, so that I think we can be confident that
+Morgan was unacquainted with the form of marriage which would have
+explained the peculiar features of the Indian and Fijian systems. It is
+evident, however, that Morgan was so absorbed in his demonstration of
+the similarity of these systems to those of America that he paid but
+little, if any, attention to their peculiarities. He thus lost a great
+opportunity; if he had attended to these peculiarities and had seen
+their meaning, he might have predicted a form of marriage which would
+soon afterwards have been independently discovered. Such an example of
+successful prediction would have forced the social significance of the
+terminology of relationship upon the attention of students in such a
+way that we should have been spared much of the controversy which has
+so long obstructed progress in this branch of sociology. It must at the
+very least have acted as a stimulus to the collection of systems of
+relationship. It would hardly have been possible that now, more than
+forty years after the appearance of Morgan’s book, we are still in
+complete ignorance of the terminology of relationship of many peoples
+about whom volumes have been written. It would seem impossible, for
+instance, that our knowledge of Indian systems of relationship could
+have been what it is to-day. India would have been the country in which
+the success of Morgan’s prediction would first have shown itself, and
+such an event must have prevented the almost total neglect which the
+subject of relationship has suffered at the hands of students of Indian
+sociology.
+
+[9] Grant, _Gazetteer of Central Provinces_, Nagpur, 2nd ed., 1870, p.
+276.
+
+
+
+
+LECTURE II
+
+
+In my last lecture I began the demonstration of the dependence of the
+classificatory terminology of relationship upon social institutions by
+showing how a number of terms used in several parts of Melanesia have
+been determined by the cross-cousin marriage. I showed that in places
+where the cross-cousin marriage is practised there are not merely one
+or two, but large groups of, terms of relationship which are exactly
+such as would follow from this form of marriage. To-day I begin by
+considering other forms of Melanesian marriage which bring out almost
+as clearly and conclusively the dependence of the classificatory
+terminology upon social conditions.
+
+The systems of relationship of the Banks Islands possess certain very
+remarkable features which were first recorded by Dr. Codrington.[10]
+Put very shortly, it may be stated that cross-cousins stand to one
+another in the relation of parent and child, or, more exactly,
+cross-cousins apply to one another terms of relationship which are
+otherwise used between parents and children. A man applies to his
+mother’s brother’s children the term which he otherwise uses for
+his own children, and, conversely, a person applies to his father’s
+sister’s son a term he otherwise uses for his father. Thus, in the
+following diagram, _C_ will apply to _D_ and _e_ the terms which are in
+general use for a son and daughter, while _D_ and _e_ will apply to _C_
+the term they otherwise use for their father.
+
+[10] _The Melanesians_, p. 38.
+
+[Illustration: DIAGRAM 2.
+
+      +----------------------------+
+      |                            |
+  B = a                            A = b
+    |                                |
+    |                     +----------+----------+
+    |                     |                     |
+    C                     D                     e
+]
+
+In most forms of the classificatory system members of different
+generations are denoted in wholly different ways and belong to
+different classes,[11] but here we have a case in which persons of the
+same generation as the speaker are classed with those of an older or a
+younger generation.
+
+[11] I leave out of account here those cases in which members of
+different generations are denoted by a reciprocal term.
+
+I will first ask you to consider to what kind of psychological
+similarity such a practice can be due. What kind of psychological
+similarity can there be between one special kind of cousin and the
+father, and between another special kind of cousin and a son or
+daughter? If the puzzle as put in this form does not seem capable of a
+satisfactory answer, let us turn to see if the Banks Islanders practise
+any social custom to which this peculiar terminology can have been due.
+In the story of Ganviviris told to Dr. Codrington in these islands[12]
+an incident occurs in which a man hands over one of his wives to his
+sister’s son, or, in other words, in which a man marries one of the
+wives of his mother’s brother. Inquiries showed, not only that this
+form of marriage was once widely current in the islands, but that it
+still persists though in a modified form. The Christianity of the
+natives does not now permit a man to have superfluous wives whom he can
+pass on to his sister’s sons, but it is still the orthodox, and indeed
+I was told the popular, custom to marry the widow of the mother’s
+brother. It seemed that in the old days a man would take the widow of
+his mother’s brother in addition to any wife or wives he might already
+have. Though this is no longer allowed, the leaning towards this form
+of marriage is so strong that after fifty years of external influence
+a young man still marries the widow of his mother’s brother, sometimes
+in preference to a girl of his own age. Indeed, there was reason to
+believe that there was an obligation to do so, if the deceased husband
+had a nephew who was not yet married. The peculiar features of the
+terminology of relationship in these islands are exactly such as would
+follow from this form of marriage. If, in Diagram 2, _C_ marries _b_,
+the wife or widow of his mother’s brother, and thereby comes to occupy
+the social position of his uncle _A_, the children of the uncle, _D_
+and _e_, will come to stand to him in the relation of children, while
+he, who had previously been the father’s sister’s son of _D_ and _e_,
+will now become their father. An exceptional form of the classificatory
+system, in which there is a departure from the usual rule limiting a
+term of relationship to members of the same generation, is found to
+be the natural consequence of a social regulation which enjoins the
+marriage of persons belonging to different generations.
+
+[12] _Op. cit._, p. 384.
+
+The next step in the process of demonstrating the social significance
+of the classificatory system of relationship will take us to the
+island of Pentecost in the northern New Hebrides. When I recorded
+the system of this island, I found it to have so bizarre and complex
+a character that I could hardly believe at first it could be other
+than the result of a ludicrous misunderstanding between myself and my
+seemingly intelligent and trustworthy informants. Nevertheless, the
+records obtained from two independent witnesses, and based on separate
+pedigrees, agreed so closely even in the details which seemed most
+improbable that I felt confident that the whole construction could not
+be so mad as it seemed. This confidence was strengthened by finding
+that some of its features were of the same order of peculiarity as
+others which I had already found in a set of Fijian systems I have
+yet to consider. There were certain features which brought relatives
+separated by two generations into one category; the mother’s mother,
+for instance, received the same designation as the elder sister; the
+wife’s mother the same as the daughter; the wife’s brother the same as
+the daughter’s son. The only conclusion I was then able to formulate
+was that these features were the result of some social institution
+resembling the matrimonial classes of Australia, which would have the
+effect of putting persons of alternate generations into one social
+category.
+
+This idea was supported by the system of relationship of the Dieri of
+Australia which possesses at least one feature similar to those of
+Pentecost, a fact I happened to remember at the time because Mr. N.
+W. Thomas[13] had used it as the basis of a _reductio ad absurdum_
+argument to show that terms of relationship do not express kinship.
+The interest of the Pentecost system seemed at first to lie in the
+possibility thus opened of bringing Melanesian into relation with
+Australian sociology, a hope which was the more promising in that the
+people of Pentecost and the Dieri resemble one another in the general
+character of their social organisation, each being organised on the
+dual basis with matrilineal descent. When in Pentecost, however, I was
+unable to get further than this, and the details of the system remained
+wholly inexplicable.
+
+[13] _Kinship Organisations and Group Marriage in Australia_,
+Cambridge, 1906, p. 123.
+
+The meaning of some of the peculiarities of the Pentecost system
+became clear when I reached the Banks Islands; they were of the same
+kind as those I have already considered as characteristic of these
+islands. When I had discovered the dependence of these features upon
+the marriage of a man with the wife of his mother’s brother, it
+became evident that not only these, but certain other features of
+the Pentecost system, were capable of being accounted for by this
+kind of marriage. The peculiar features of the Pentecost system could
+be divided into two groups, and all the members of one group could
+be accounted for by the marriage with the mother’s brother’s wife.
+All these features had the character in common that persons of the
+generation immediately above or below that of the speaker were classed
+in nomenclature with relatives of the same generation.
+
+The other group consisted of terms in which persons two generations
+apart were classed with relatives of the same generation. Since the
+first group of correspondences had been explained by a marriage between
+persons one generation apart, it should have been obvious that the
+classing together of persons two generations apart might have been
+the result of marriage between persons two generations apart. The
+idea of a society in which marriages between those having the status
+of grandparents and grandchildren were habitual must have seemed
+so unlikely that, if it entered my mind at all, it must have been
+at once dismissed. The clue only came later from a man named John
+Pantutun, a native of the Banks Islands, who had been a teacher in
+Pentecost. In talking to me he often mentioned in a most instructive
+manner resemblances and differences between the customs of his own
+island and those he had observed in Pentecost. One day he let fall
+the observation with just such a manner as that in which we so often
+accuse neighbouring nations of ridiculous or disgusting practices, “O!
+Raga![14] That is the place where they marry their granddaughters.” I
+saw at once that he had given me a possible explanation of the peculiar
+features of the system of the island. By that time I had forgotten
+the details of the Pentecost system, and it occurred to me that it
+would be interesting, not immediately to consult my note-books, but
+to endeavour to construct a system of relationship which would be the
+result of marriage with a granddaughter, and then to see how far my
+theoretical construction agreed with the terminology I had recorded.
+The first question which arose was with which kind of granddaughter
+the marriage had been practised, with the son’s daughter or with the
+daughter’s daughter, and this was a question readily answered by means
+of a consideration arising out of the nature of the social organisation
+of Pentecost.
+
+[14] This is the Mota name for Pentecost Island.
+
+The society of this island is organised on the dual basis with
+matrilineal descent in which a man must marry a woman of the opposite
+moiety. Diagram 3, in which _A_ and _a_ stand for men and women of
+one moiety, and _B_ and _b_ for those of the other moiety, shows that
+a marriage between a man and his son’s daughter would be out of the
+question, for it would be a case of _A_ marrying _a_. It was evident
+that the marriage, the consequences of which I had to formulate, must
+have been one in which a man married his daughter’s daughter.
+
+[Illustration: DIAGRAM 3.
+
+                   A = b
+                     |
+                     |
+       +-------------+-------------+
+       |                           |
+       B = a                   A = b
+         |                       |
+  +------+------+        +-------+-------+
+  |             |        |               |
+  A             a        B               b
+]
+
+It would take too long to go through the whole set of relationships,
+and I choose only a few examples which I illustrate by the following
+diagram:
+
+[Illustration: DIAGRAM 4.
+
+          A = b
+            |
+            |
+        D = c
+          |
+          |
+  +-------+-------+
+  |       |       |
+  e       F       f
+]
+
+This diagram shows that if _A_ marries _e_, _c_, who previous to the
+marriage had been only the daughter of _A_, now becomes also his wife’s
+mother; and _D_, who had previously been his daughter’s husband, now
+becomes his wife’s father. Similarly, _F_, who before the new marriage
+was the daughter’s son of _A_, now becomes the brother of his wife,
+while _f_, his daughter’s daughter, becomes his wife’s sister. Lastly,
+if we assume that it would be the elder daughters of the daughter who
+would be married by their grandfathers, _e_, who before the marriage
+had been the elder sister of _F_ and _f_, now comes through her
+marriage to occupy the position of their mother’s mother.
+
+When, after making these deductions, I examined my record of the
+Pentecost terms, I found that its terminology corresponded exactly with
+those which had been deduced. The wife’s mother and the daughter were
+both called _nitu_. The daughter’s husband and the wife’s father were
+both _bwaliga_. The daughter’s children were called _mabi_, and this
+term was also used for the brother and sister of the wife. Lastly, the
+mother’s mother was found to be classed with the elder sister, both
+being called _tuaga_.
+
+For the sake of simplicity of demonstration I have assumed that a man
+marries his own daughter’s daughter, but through the classificatory
+principle all the features I have described would follow equally well
+if a man married the granddaughter of his brother, either in the narrow
+or the classificatory sense. There was one correspondence, according
+to which both the husband’s brother and the mother’s father were
+called _sibi_, which does not follow from the marriage with the own
+granddaughter, but would be the natural result of marriage with the
+daughter’s daughter of the brother--_i.e._, with a marriage in which
+_e_ was married by _A’s_ brother.
+
+I hope these examples will be sufficient to show how a number of
+features which might otherwise seem so absurd as to suggest a system of
+relationship gone mad become natural and intelligible, even obvious,
+if it were once the established practice of the people to marry the
+daughter’s daughter of the brother.
+
+Such inquiries as I was able to make confirmed the conclusion that the
+Pentecost marriage was with the granddaughter of the brother rather
+than with the daughter of the daughter herself. After I had been put
+on the track of the explanation by John Pantutun I had the chance of
+talking to only one native of Pentecost, unfortunately not a very
+good informant. From his evidence it appeared that the marriage I had
+inferred from the system of relationship even now occurs in the island,
+but only with the granddaughter of the brother, and that marriage with
+the own granddaughter is forbidden. The evidence is not as complete as
+I should like, but it points to the actual existence in the island of a
+peculiar form of marriage from which the extraordinary features of its
+system of relationship directly follow.
+
+When I returned to England I found that this marriage was not unique,
+but had been recorded among the Dieri of Australia,[15] where, as I
+have already mentioned, it is associated with peculiar features of
+nomenclature resembling those of Pentecost.
+
+[15] Howitt, _Native Tribes of South-East Australia_, pp. 164, 177.
+
+I must again ask, how are you going to explain the features of the
+Pentecost system psychologically? What psychological resemblance is
+there between a grandmother and a sister, between a mother-in-law and a
+daughter, between a brother-in-law and a grandfather? Apart from some
+special form of social relationship, there can be no such resemblances.
+Further, if there were such psychological resemblances, why should we
+know of their influence on nomenclature only in Pentecost and among the
+Dieri? The features to be explained are definitely known to exist in
+only two systems of the world, and it is only among the peoples who use
+these two systems that we have any evidence of that extraordinary form
+of marriage of which they would be the natural consequence.
+
+       *       *       *       *       *
+
+I have now tried to show the dependence of special features of the
+classificatory system of relationship upon special social conditions.
+If I have succeeded in this I shall have gone far towards the
+accomplishment of one of the main purposes of these lectures. They
+have, however, another purpose, viz., to inquire how far we are
+justified in inferring the existence of a social institution of which
+we have no direct evidence when we find features of the nomenclature
+of relationship which would result from such an institution. I have
+now to enter upon this part of my subject, and I think it will be
+instructive to take you at once to a case in which I believe that an
+extraordinary form of marriage can be established as a feature of the
+past history of a people, although at the present moment any direct
+evidence for the existence of such a marriage is wholly lacking.
+
+When I was in the interior of Viti Levu, one of the Fijian islands,
+I discovered the existence of certain systems of relationship which
+differed fundamentally from the only Fijian systems previously known.
+Any features referable to the cross-cousin marriage were completely
+absent, but in their place were others, one of which I have already
+mentioned, which brought into one class relatives two generations
+apart. The father’s father received the same designation as the
+elder brother, and the son’s wife was called by the same term as the
+mother. As I have already said, my first conclusion was that these
+terms were the survivals of forms of social organisation resembling
+the matrimonial classes of Australia, but as soon as I had worked out
+the explanation of the Pentecost system, it became evident that the
+Fijian peculiarities would have to be explained on similar lines. At
+first I thought it probable that the difference between the Pentecost
+and Fijian systems was due to the difference in the mode of descent
+in the two places. For long I tried to work out schemes whereby a
+change from the matrilineal descent of Pentecost to the patrilineal
+condition of Fiji could have had as one of its consequences a change
+from a correspondence in nomenclature between the mother’s mother
+and the elder sister to one in which the common nomenclature applied
+to the father’s father and the elder brother. It is an interesting
+example of the strength of a preconceived opinion, and of some
+measure of the belief in the impossibility of customs not practised
+by ourselves, that for more than two years I failed to see an obvious
+alternative explanation, although I returned to the subject again and
+again. The clue came at last from the system of Buin, in the island
+of Bougainville, recorded by Dr. Thurnwald.[16] The nomenclature of
+this system agreed with that of inland Fiji in having one term for the
+father’s father and the elder brother, but since the people of Buin
+still practice matrilineal descent, it was evident that I had been on
+a false track in supposing the correspondence to have been the result
+of a change in the mode of descent. Once turned into a fresh path by
+the necessity of showing how the correspondence could have arisen out
+of a matrilineal condition, it was not long before I saw how it might
+be accounted for in a very different way. I saw that the correspondence
+would be the natural result of a form of social organisation in which
+it was the practice to marry a grandmother, viz., the wife of the
+father’s father. Not only did this form of marriage explain the second
+peculiar feature of the Fijian system, viz., the classing of the son’s
+wife with the mother, but it would also account for several features of
+the Buin system which would otherwise be difficult to understand.
+
+[16] _Zeitsch. f. vergleich. Rechtswiss._, 1910, xxiii., 330.
+
+[Illustration: DIAGRAM 5.
+
+      A = b
+        |
+        |
+        C = d
+          |
+          |
+  +-------+-------+
+  |       |       |
+  E       F       f
+]
+
+If, as shown in Diagram 5, _E_ marries _b_, the wife or widow of his
+father’s father, he, who had previously been the elder brother of _F_
+and _f_, now comes to occupy the position of their father’s father,
+while _d_, the mother of _E_, will now come to stand to him in the
+relationship of son’s wife.
+
+I need only mention here one of the features of the Buin system which
+can be accounted for by means of this marriage. The term _mamai_ is
+used, not only for the elder sister and for the elder brother’s wife,
+but it is also applied to the father’s mother; that is, the wife of
+the elder brother is designated by the same term as the wife of the
+father’s father, exactly as must happen if _E_ marries _b_, the wife
+of his father’s father. A number of extraordinary features from two
+Melanesian islands collected by two independent workers fit into a
+coherent scheme if they have been the result of a marriage in which
+a man gives one of his wives to his son’s son during his life, or in
+which this woman is taken to wife by her husband’s grandson when she
+becomes a widow. If the practice were ever sufficiently habitual to
+become the basis of the system of relationship, we can be confident
+that it is the former of these two alternatives with which we have to
+do.
+
+If you are still so under the domination of ideas derived from your own
+social surroundings that you cannot believe in such a marriage, I would
+remind you that there is definite evidence from the Banks Islands that
+men used to hand over wives to their sisters’ sons. It is not taking us
+so much into the unknown as it might appear to suppose that they once
+also gave their wives to their sons’ sons.
+
+I have taken this case somewhat out of its proper place in my argument
+because the evidence is so closely connected with that by means
+of which I have shown the relation between features of systems of
+relationship and peculiar forms of marriage in Melanesia. I have now to
+return to the more sober task of considering how far we are justified
+in inferring the former existence of marriage institutions when we
+find features of systems of relationship of which they would have been
+the natural consequence. It is evident that, whenever we find such a
+feature as common nomenclature for a grandmother and a sister or for a
+cross-cousin and a parent, it should suggest to us the possibility of
+such marriage regulations as those of Pentecost and the Banks Islands.
+But such common designations might have arisen in some other way,
+and in order to establish the existence of such forms of marriage in
+the past history of the people, we must have criteria to guide us
+when we are considering whether a given feature of the terminology of
+relationship is or is not a survival of a marriage institution.
+
+I will return to the cross-cousin marriage for my examples. The task
+before us is to inquire how far such features of relationship as exist
+in Fiji, Anaiteum or Guadalcanar, in conjunction with the cross-cousin
+marriage, will justify us in inferring the former existence of this
+form of marriage in places where it is not now practised.
+
+If there be found among any people all the characteristic features of
+a coastal Fijian or of an Anaiteum system, I think few will be found
+to doubt the former existence of the cross-cousin marriage. It would
+seem almost inconceivable that there should ever have existed any other
+conditions, whether social or psychological, which could have produced
+this special combination of peculiar uses of terms of relationship. It
+is when some only of these features are present that there will arise
+any serious doubt whether they are to be regarded as survivals of the
+former existence of the cross-cousin marriage.
+
+One consideration I must point out at once. Certain of the features
+which follow from the cross-cousin marriage may be the result of
+another marriage regulation. In some parts of the world there exists a
+custom of exchanging brothers and sisters, so that, when a man marries
+a woman, his sister marries his wife’s brother. As the result of this
+custom the mother’s brother and the father’s sister’s husband will come
+to be one and the same person, and the father’s sister will become also
+the mother’s brother’s wife.
+
+This form of marriage exists among the western people of Torres
+Straits,[17] and is accompanied by features of the system of
+relationship which would follow from the practice. The mother’s brother
+is classed with the father’s sister’s husband as _wad-wam_, but there
+is an alternative term for the father’s sister’s husband and there
+was no evidence that the mother’s brother’s wife was classed with
+the father’s sister. It seemed possible that the classing together
+of the mother’s brother and the father’s sister’s husband was not a
+constant feature of the system of relationship, but only occurred in
+cases where the custom of exchange had made it necessary. The case,
+however, is sufficient to show that two of the correspondences which
+follow from the cross-cousin marriage may be the result of another
+kind of marriage. If we accept the social causation of such features
+and find these correspondences alone, it would still remain an open
+question whether they were the results of the custom of exchange or
+of the marriage of cross-cousins. The custom of exchange, however, is
+wholly incapable of accounting for the use of a common term for the
+mother’s brother and the father-in-law, for the father’s sister and the
+mother-in-law, or for cross-cousins and brothers- or sisters-in-law.
+It is only when these correspondences are present that there will
+be any decisive reason for inferring the former existence of the
+cross-cousin marriage.
+
+[17] _Rep. Cambridge Expedition to Torres Straits_, vol. v., pp. 135
+and 241.
+
+The first conclusion, then, is that some of the features found in
+association with the cross-cousin marriage are of greater value than
+others in enabling us to infer the former existence of the cross-cousin
+marriage where it no longer exists. Next, the probability that such
+features as I am considering are due to the former presence of the
+cross-cousin marriage will be greatly heightened if this form of
+marriage should exist among people with allied cultures. An instance
+from Melanesia will bring out this point clearly.
+
+In the island of Florida in the Solomons it is clear that the
+cross-cousin marriage is not now the custom, and I could discover
+no tradition of its existence in the past. One feature, however, of
+the system of relationship is just such as would follow from the
+cross-cousin marriage. Both the wife’s mother and the wife of the
+mother’s brother are called _vungo_.
+
+Florida is not only near Guadalcanar where the cross-cousin marriage
+is practised, (the two islands are within sight of one another), but
+their cultures are very closely related. In such a case the probability
+that the single feature of the Florida system which follows from the
+cross-cousin marriage has actually had that form of marriage as its
+antecedent becomes very great, and this conclusion becomes still more
+probable when we find that in a third island, Ysabel, closely allied
+in culture both to Florida and Guadalcanar, there is a clear tradition
+of the former practice of the cross-cousin marriage although it is now
+only an occasional event.
+
+Again, in one district of San Cristoval in the Solomons the term
+_fongo_ is used both for the father-in-law and the father’s sister’s
+husband, and _kafongo_ similarly denotes both the mother-in-law and
+the mother’s brother’s wife. This island differs more widely from
+Guadalcanar in culture than Florida or Ysabel, but the evidence for
+the former existence of the marriage in these islands gives us more
+confidence in ascribing the common designations of San Cristoval to the
+cross-cousin marriage than would have been the case if these common
+designations had been the only examples of such possible survivals in
+the Solomons. Speaking in more general terms, one may say that the
+probability that the common nomenclature for two relatives is the
+survival of a form of marriage becomes the greater, the more similar is
+the general culture in which the supposed survival is found to that of
+a people who practise this form of marriage. The case will be greatly
+strengthened if there should be intermediate links between the supposed
+survival and the still living institution.
+
+When we find a feature such as that of the Florida system among a
+people none of whose allies in culture practise the cross-cousin
+marriage, the matter must be far more doubtful. In the present state
+of our knowledge we are only justified in making such a feature the
+basis of a working hypothesis to stimulate research and encourage us
+to look for other evidence in the neighbourhood of the place where the
+feature has been found. Our knowledge of the social institutions of the
+world is not yet so complete that we can afford to neglect any clue
+which may guide our steps.
+
+I propose briefly to consider two regions, South India and North
+America, to show how they differ from this point of view.
+
+The terms of relationship used in three[18] of the chief languages
+spoken by the people of South India are exactly such as would follow
+from the cross-cousin marriage. In Tamil[19] the mother’s brother, the
+father’s sister’s husband, and the father of both husband and wife are
+all called _mama_, and this term is also used for these relatives in
+Telegu. In Canarese the mother’s brother and the father-in-law are both
+called _mava_, but the father’s sister’s husband fails to fall into
+line and is classed with the father’s brother.
+
+[18] I know of no complete record of the terminology of the fourth
+chief language of South India, Malayalam.
+
+[19] I take my data from the lists compiled for Morgan by the Rev. E.
+C. Scudder and the Rev. B. Rice, Morgan’s _Systems ..._, pp. 537-566.
+These lists are not complete, giving in some cases only the terms used
+in address. They agree in general with some lists compiled during the
+recent Indian Census which Mr. E. A. Gait has kindly sent to me.
+
+Similarly, the father’s sister, the mother’s brother’s wife and the
+mother of both wife and husband are called _atta_ in Telegu and _atte_
+in Canarese, Tamil here spoiling the harmony by having one term,
+_attai_, for the father’s sister and another, _mami_, for the mother’s
+brother’s wife and the mother-in-law. Since, however, the Tamil term
+for the father’s sister is only another form of the Telegu and Canarese
+words for the combined relationships, the exception only serves to
+strengthen the agreement with the condition which would follow from the
+cross-cousin marriage.
+
+The South Indian terms for cross-cousin and brother- and sister-in-law
+are complicated by the presence of distinctions dependent on the sex
+and relative age of those who use them, but these complications do
+not disguise how definitely the terminology would follow from the
+cross-cousin marriage. Thus, to take only two examples: a Tamil man
+applies the term _maittuni_ to the daughters of his mother’s brother
+and of his father’s sister as well as to his brother’s wife and his
+wife’s sister, and a Canarese woman uses one term for the sons of her
+mother’s brother and of her father’s sister, for her husband’s brother
+and her sister’s husband.
+
+So far as we know, the cross-cousin marriage is not now practised by
+the vast majority of those who use these terms of relationship. If the
+terminology has been the result of the cross-cousin marriage, it is
+only a survival of an ancient social condition in which this form of
+marriage was habitual. That it is such a survival, however, becomes
+certain when we find the cross-cousin marriage still persisting in
+many parts of South India, and that among one such people at least,
+the Todas,[20] this form of marriage is associated with a system of
+relationship agreeing both in its structure and linguistic character
+with that of the Tamils. I have elsewhere[21] brought together the
+evidence for the former prevalence of this form of marriage in India,
+but even if there were no evidence, the terminology of relationship is
+so exactly such as would follow from the cross-cousin marriage that we
+can be certain that this form of marriage was once the habitual custom
+of the people of South India.
+
+[20] Rivers, _The Todas_, 1906, pp. 487, 512.
+
+[21] _Journal Royal Asiatic Society_, 1907, p. 611.
+
+While South India thus provides a good example of a case in which we
+can confidently infer the former existence of the cross-cousin marriage
+from the terminology of relationship, the evidence from North America
+is of a kind which gives to such an inference only a certain degree of
+probability. In this case it is necessary to suspend judgment and await
+further evidence before coming to a positive conclusion.
+
+I will begin with a very doubtful feature which comes from an
+Athapascan tribe, the Red Knives[22] (probably that now called Yellow
+Knife). These people use a common term, _set-so_, for the father’s
+sister, the mother’s brother’s wife, the wife’s mother and the
+husband’s mother, a usage which would be the necessary result of
+the cross-cousin marriage. Against this, however, is to be put the
+fact that there are three different terms for the corresponding male
+relatives, the two kinds of father-in-law being called _seth-a_,
+the mother’s brother _ser-a_, and the father’s sister’s husband
+_sel-the-ne_. Further, the term _set-so_, the common use of which for
+the aunt and mother-in-law seems to indicate the cross-cousin marriage,
+is also applied by a man to his brother’s wife and his wife’s sister,
+features which cannot possibly be the result of this form of marriage.
+These features show, either that the terminology has arisen in some
+other way, or that there has been some additional social factor in
+operation which has greatly modified a nomenclature derived from the
+cross-cousin marriage.
+
+[22] See Morgan, _Systems ..._, Table II.
+
+A stronger case is presented by the terminology of three branches
+of the Cree tribe, also recorded by Morgan. In all three systems,
+one term, _ne-sis_ or _nee-sis_, is used for the mother’s brother,
+the father’s sister’s husband, the wife’s father and the husband’s
+father; while the term _nis-si-goos_ applies to the father’s sister,
+the mother’s brother’s wife and the two kinds of mother-in-law. These
+usages are exactly such as would follow from the cross-cousin marriage.
+The terms for the sister’s son of a man and the brother’s son of a
+woman, however, differ from those used for the son-in-law, and there
+is also no correspondence between the terms for cross-cousin and any
+kind of brother- or sister-in-law. The case points more definitely to
+the cross-cousin marriage than in the case of the Red Knives, but yet
+lacks the completeness which would allow us to make the inference with
+confidence.
+
+The Assiniboin have a common term, _me-toh-we_, used for the father’s
+sister, the mother’s brother’s wife and the two kinds of mother-in-law,
+and also a common term, _me-nake-she_, for the mother’s brother and
+the father’s sister’s husband, but the latter differs from the word,
+_me-to-ga-she_, used for the father of husband or wife. The case here
+is decidedly stronger than among the Red Knives, but is less complete
+than among the Crees.
+
+Among a number of branches of the Dakotas the evidence is of a
+different kind, being derived from similar nomenclature for the
+cross-cousin and certain kinds of brother- and sister-in-law.
+Morgan[23] has recorded eight systems, all of which show the features
+in question, but I will consider here only that of the Isauntie or
+Santee Dakotas, which was collected for him by the Rev. S. R. Riggs.
+Riggs[24] and Dorsey[25] have given independent accounts of this system
+which are far less complete than that given by Morgan, but agree with
+it in all essentials.
+
+[23] _Loc. cit._
+
+[24] _Dakota Grammar, Texts, and Ethnography: Contributions to North
+American Ethnology_, Washington, vol. ix.
+
+[25] Preface to above.
+
+In this system a man calls the son of his mother’s brother or of
+his father’s sister _ta-hang-she_ or _tang-hang-she_, while his
+wife’s brother and his sister’s husband are _ta-hang_ or _tang-hang_.
+Similarly, a woman calls her cross-cousin _she-chay-she_, while her
+husband’s brother and her sister’s husband are called _she-chay_. The
+terms for brothers-in-law are thus the same as those for cross-cousins
+with the omission of the suffix _she_. One of these resemblances, that
+when a woman is speaking, has been cited by Professor Kroeber[26] as an
+example of the psychological causation of such features of relationship
+as I am considering in these lectures. He rejects its dependence on the
+cross-cousin marriage and refers the resemblance to the psychological
+similarity between a woman’s cousin and her brother-in-law in that both
+are collateral relatives alike in sex, of the same generation as the
+speaker, but different from her in sex.
+
+[26] _Op. cit._, p. 82.
+
+As we have seen, however, the Dakota correspondence is not an isolated
+occurrence, but fits in with a number of other features of the systems
+of cognate peoples to form a body of evidence pointing to the former
+prevalence of the cross-cousin marriage.
+
+There is also indirect evidence leading in the same direction. In
+Melanesia there is reason to believe that the cross-cousin marriage
+stands in a definite relation to another form of marriage, that with
+the wife of the mother’s brother. If there should be evidence for the
+former existence of this marriage in North America, it would increase
+the probability in favour of the cross-cousin marriage.
+
+Among a number of peoples, some of whom form part of the Sioux,
+including the Minnitarees, Crows, Choctas, Creeks, Cherokees and
+Pawnees, cross-cousins are classed with parents and children exactly as
+in the Banks Islands, and exactly as in those islands, it is the son of
+the father’s sister who is classed with the father, and the children of
+the mother’s brother who are classed with sons or daughters. Further,
+among the Pawnees the wife of the mother’s brother is classed with
+the wife, a feature also associated with the peculiar nomenclature
+for cross-cousins in the Banks Islands. The agreement is so close as
+to make it highly probable that the American features of relationship
+have been derived from a social institution of the same kind as that
+to which the Melanesian features are due, and that it was once the
+custom of these American peoples to marry the wife of the mother’s
+brother. Here, as in the case of the cross-cousin marriage itself,
+the case rests entirely upon the terminology of relationship, but we
+cannot ignore the association in neighbouring parts of North America of
+features of relationship which would be the natural consequence of two
+forms of marriage which are known to be associated together elsewhere.
+
+I am indebted to Miss Freire-Marreco for the information that the Tewa
+of Hano, a Pueblo tribe, call the father’s sister’s son _tada_, a term
+otherwise used for the father, thus suggesting that they also may once
+have practised marriage with the wife of the mother’s brother. The
+use of this term, however, is only one example of a practice whereby
+all the males of the father’s clan are called _tada_, irrespective of
+age and generation. The common nomenclature for the father and the
+father’s sister’s son among the Tewa thus differs in character from
+the apparently similar nomenclature of the Banks Islands and cannot
+have been determined directly, perhaps not even remotely, by marriage
+with the wife of the mother’s brother. This raises the question whether
+the nomenclature of the Sioux has not arisen out of a practice similar
+to that of the Tewa. The terms for other relatives recorded by Morgan
+show some evidence of the widely generalised use of the Tewa, but such
+a use cannot account for the classing of the wife of the mother’s
+brother with the wife which occurs among the Pawnees. Nevertheless, the
+Tewa practice should keep us alive to the possibility that the Sioux
+nomenclature may depend on some social condition different from that
+which has been effective in the Banks Islands in spite of the close
+resemblance between the two.
+
+The case for the former existence of the cross-cousin marriage will be
+much strengthened if this form of marriage should occur elsewhere in
+North America. So far as I am aware, the only people among whom it has
+been recorded are the Haidahs of Queen Charlotte Island.[27] It is
+a far cry from this outpost of North American culture to Dakota, but
+it may be noted that it is among the Crees who formerly lived in the
+intermediate region of Manitoba and Assiniboia that the traces of the
+cross-cousin marriage are most definite. This mode of distribution of
+the peoples whose terminology of relationship bears evidence of the
+cross-cousin marriage suggests that other intermediate links may yet
+be found. Though the existing evidence is inconclusive, it should be
+sufficient to stimulate a search for other evidence which may make it
+possible to decide whether or no the cross-cousin marriage was once a
+widespread practice in North America.
+
+[27] Swanton, _Contributions to the Ethnology of the Haidahs, Jesup
+North Pacific Expedition_, 1905, vol. v., pt. i., p. 62. Miss
+Freire-Marreco tells me that the cross-cousin marriage occurs among
+some of the Hopi Indians.
+
+I can only consider one other kind of marriage here. The discovery of
+so remarkable a union as that with the daughter’s daughter in Pentecost
+and the evidence pointing to a still more remarkable marriage between
+those having the status of grandparent and grandchild in Fiji and
+Buin have naturally led me to look for similar evidence elsewhere
+in Melanesia. Though there is nothing conclusive, conditions are to
+be found here and there which suggest the former existence of such
+marriages.
+
+When I was in the Solomons I met a native of the Trobriand Islands,
+who told me that among his people the term _tabu_ was applied both
+to grandparents and to the father’s sister’s child. I went into the
+whole subject as fully as was possible with only one witness, but in
+spite of his obvious intelligence and good faith, I remained doubtful
+whether the information was correct. The feature in question, however,
+occurs in the list of Trobriand terms drawn up for Dr. Seligmann[28]
+by Mr. Bellamy, and with this double warrant it must be accepted. It
+is a feature which would follow from marriage with the daughter’s
+daughter, for by this marriage one who was previously a father’s
+sister’s daughter becomes the wife of a grandfather and thereby attains
+the status of a grandparent. The feature exists alone, and, further,
+it is combined with other applications of the term which deprive it
+of some of its significance; nevertheless, the fact that a peculiar
+and exceptional feature of a Melanesian system of relationship is such
+as would follow naturally from a form of marriage which is practised
+in another part of Melanesia cannot be passed over. Standing alone,
+it would be wholly insufficient to justify the conclusion that the
+marriage with the daughter’s daughter was ever prevalent among the
+Massim, but in place of expressing a dogmatic denial, let us look for
+other features of Massim sociology which may have been the results of
+such a marriage.
+
+[28] See _The Melanesians of British New Guinea_, Cambridge, 1910, p.
+707.
+
+In Wagawaga[29] there is a peculiar term, _warihi_, which is used
+by men for other men of their own generation and social group, but
+the term is also applied by an old man or woman to one of a younger
+generation. Again, in Tubetube[30] the term for a husband, _taubara_,
+is also a term for an old man, and the term for the wife is also
+applied to an old woman. These usages may be nothing more than
+indications of respect for a husband or wife, or of some mechanism
+which brought those differing widely in age into one social category,
+but with the clue provided by the Trobriand term of relationship it
+becomes possible, though even now only possible, that the Wagawaga and
+Tubetube customs may have arisen out of a social condition in which
+it was customary to have great disparity of age between husbands and
+wives, and social relations between old and young following from such
+disparity in the age of consorts.
+
+[29] _Ibid._, pp. 482 and 436.
+
+[30] _The Melanesians of British New Guinea_, Cambridge, 1910, p. 482.
+
+In Tubetube there is yet another piece of evidence. Mr. Field[31]
+has recorded the existence in this island of three named categories
+of persons, two of which comprise relatives with whom marriage is
+prohibited, while the third groups together those with whom marriage
+is allowed. The grandparents and grandchildren are included in one of
+the two prohibited classes, so that we can be confident that marriage
+between these relatives does not now occur. The point to which I call
+your attention is that the class of relative with whom marriage is
+allowed is called _kasoriegogoli_. _Li_ is the third person pronominal
+suffix, and we do not know the meaning of _kasorie_, but _goga_ is
+the term used in Wagawaga and Wedau for the grandparents, its place
+being taken by the usual Melanesian term _tubu_ in Tubetube. The term
+_kasoriegogoli_ applied to marriageable relatives thus contains as one
+of its constituent elements a word which is probably the ancient term
+for grandparent in the island, since it is still used in this sense in
+the closely allied societies of the mainland.
+
+[31] Rep. Austral. Ass., 1900, viii., 301.
+
+We have thus a number of independent facts among the Massim, all of
+which would be the natural outcome of marriage between persons of
+alternate generations. To no one of them standing alone could much
+importance be attached, but taken in conjunction, they ought at least
+to suggest the possibility of such a marriage, a possibility which
+becomes the more probable when we consider that the Massim show clear
+evidence of the dual organisation of society with matrilineal descent
+which is associated with the granddaughter marriage of Pentecost and
+the Dieri of Australia. It adds to the weight of the evidence that
+indications of this peculiar form of marriage should be found among a
+people whose social organisation so closely resembles that in which the
+marriages between persons of alternate generations elsewhere occur.
+
+I have no time for other examples. I hope to have shown that there are
+cases in which it is possible to infer with certainty the ancient
+existence of forms of marriage from the survival of their results in
+the terminology of relationship. In other cases, differences of culture
+or the absence of intermediate links make it unjustifiable to infer
+the ancient existence of the forms of marriage from which features of
+terminology might be derived. Other cases lie between the two, the
+confidence with which a form of marriage can be inferred varying with
+the degree of likeness of culture, the distance in space, and the
+presence or absence of other features of culture which may be related
+to the form of marriage in question. Even in the cases, however, where
+the inference is most doubtful, we have no right dogmatically to deny
+the origin of the terminology of relationship in social conditions, but
+should keep each example before an open mind, to guide and stimulate
+inquiry in a region where ethnologists have till now only scratched the
+surface covering a rich mine of knowledge.
+
+
+
+
+LECTURE III
+
+
+Thus far in these lectures I have been content to demonstrate the
+dependence of the terminology of relationship upon forms of marriage.
+In spending so much time upon this aspect of my subject I fear that
+I may have been helping to strengthen a very general misconception,
+for it is frequently supposed that the sole aim of those who think
+as I do is to explain systems of relationship by their origin in
+forms of marriage. Marriage is only one of the social institutions
+which have moulded the terminology of relationship. It is, however,
+so fundamental a social institution that it is difficult to get far
+away from it in any argument which deals with social organisation. In
+now passing to other examples of the dependence of the terminology of
+relationship upon social conditions, I begin with one in which features
+of this terminology have come about, not as the result of forms of
+marriage, but of an attitude towards social regulations connected with
+marriage. The instance I have now to consider is closely allied to one
+which Professor Kroeber has used as his pattern of the psychological
+causation of the terminology of relationship.
+
+Both in Polynesia and Melanesia it is not infrequent for the
+father-in-law to be classed with the father, the mother-in-law with
+the mother, the brother-in-law with the brother, and the sister-in-law
+with the sister. The Oceanic terminology of relationship has two
+features which enable us to study the exact nature of this process in
+more detail than is possible with our own system. Oceanic languages
+often distinguish carefully between different kinds of brother- and
+sister-in-law, and, if it be found that it is only certain kinds of
+brother- or sister-in-law who are classed with the brother or sister,
+we may thereby obtain a clue to the nature of the process whereby
+the classing has come about. Secondly, Oceanic terminology usually
+distinguishes relationships between men or between women from those
+between persons of different sex, and there is a feature of the
+terminology employed when brothers- or sisters-in-law are classed with
+brothers or sisters in Oceania which throws much light on the process
+whereby this common nomenclature has come into use.
+
+The first point to be noticed in the Oceanic nomenclature of
+relationship is that not all brothers- and sisters-in-law are classed
+with brothers and sisters, but only those of different sex. Thus,
+in Merlav, in the Banks Islands, it is only the wife’s sister and
+a man’s brother’s wife who are classed with the sister, and the
+husband’s brother and a woman’s sister’s husband who are classed with
+the brother, while there are special terms for other categories
+of relative whom we include under the designations brother- and
+sister-in-law. Similar conditions are general throughout Melanesia. If,
+as Professor Kroeber has supposed, the classing of the brother-in-law
+with the brother be due to the psychological similarity of the
+relationships, we ought to be able to discover why this similarity
+should be greater between persons of different sex than between persons
+of the same sex.
+
+If now we study our case from the Banks Islands more closely and
+compare the social conditions in Merlav with those of other islands
+of the group, we find definite evidence, which it will not now be
+possible to consider in detail, showing that sexual relations were
+formerly allowed between a man and his wife’s sisters and his brothers’
+wives, and that there is a definite association between the classing
+of these relatives with the sister and the cessation of such sexual
+relations. If such people as the Melanesians wish to emphasise in the
+strongest manner possible the impropriety of sexual relations between
+a man and the sisters of his wife, there is no way in which they can
+do it more effectually than by classing these relatives with a sister.
+To a Melanesian, as to other people of rude culture, the use of a
+term otherwise applied to a sister carries with it such deeply-seated
+associations as to put sexual relations absolutely out of the question.
+There is a large body of evidence from southern Melanesia which
+suggests strongly, if not conclusively, that the common nomenclature
+I am now considering has arisen out of the social need for emphasising
+the impropriety of relations which were once habitual among the people.
+
+The second feature of Melanesian terminology which I have mentioned
+helps us to understand how the common nomenclature has come about.
+In most of the Melanesian cases in which a wife’s sister is denoted
+by a term otherwise used for a sister, or a husband’s brother by a
+term otherwise used for a brother, the term employed is one which is
+normally used between those of the same sex. Thus, a man does not apply
+to his wife’s sister the term which he himself uses for his sister, but
+one which would be used by a woman of her sister. In other words, a man
+uses for his wife’s sister the term which is used for this relative
+by his wife. This shows us how the common nomenclature may have come
+into use. It suggests that as sexual relations with the wife’s sister
+became no longer orthodox, a man came to apply to this woman the word
+with which he was already familiar as a term for this relative from
+the mouth of his wife. The special feature of Melanesian nomenclature
+according to which terms of relationship vary with the sex of the
+speaker here helps us to understand how the common nomenclature arose.
+The process is one in which psychological factors evidently play an
+important part, but these psychological factors are themselves the
+outcome of a social process, viz., the change from a condition of
+sexual communism to one in which sexual relations are restricted to
+the partners of a marriage. Such psychological factors as come into
+action are only intermediate links in a chain of causation in which the
+two ends are definitely social processes or events, or, perhaps more
+correctly, psychological concomitants of intermediate links which are
+themselves social events. We should be shutting our eyes to obvious
+features of these Melanesian customs if we refused to recognise that
+the terminology of relationship here “reflects” sociology.
+
+This leads me to question for a moment whether it may not be the same
+with that custom of our own society which Professor Kroeber has taken
+as his example of the psychological causation of the terminology
+of relationship. Is it as certain as Professor Kroeber supposes
+that the classing of the brother-in-law with the brother, or of the
+sister-in-law with the sister, among ourselves does not reflect
+sociology? We know that there are social factors at work among us which
+give to these relationships, and especially to that of wife’s sister,
+a very great importance. If instead of stating dogmatically that this
+feature of our own terminology is due to the psychological similarity
+of the relationships, Professor Kroeber’s mind had been open even to
+the possibility of the working of social causes, I think he might
+have been led to inquire more closely into the distribution and exact
+character of the practice in question. He might have been led to see
+that we have here a problem for exact inquiry. Such a custom among
+ourselves must certainly own a cause different from that to which I
+have ascribed the Melanesian practice, but is it certain that there is
+no social practice among ourselves which would lead to the classing
+of the wife’s sister with the sister and the sister’s husband of a
+woman with the brother? I will only point to the practice of marrying
+the deceased wife’s sister, and content myself with the remark that I
+should be surprised if there were any general tendency to class these
+relatives together by a people among whom this form of marriage is the
+orthodox and habitual custom.
+
+Till now I have been dealing with relatively small variations of the
+classificatory system. The varieties I have so far considered are such
+as would arise out of a common system if in one place there came into
+vogue the cross-cousin marriage, in another place marriage with the
+wife of the mother’s brother, in another that with the granddaughter
+of the brother or with the wife of the grandfather, and in yet
+other places combinations of these forms of marriage. I have now to
+consider whether it is possible to refer the main varieties of the
+classificatory system to social conditions; as an example with which
+to begin, I choose one which is so definite that it attracted the
+attention of Morgan, viz., the variety of the classificatory system
+which Morgan called “Malayan”. It is now generally recognised that
+this term was badly chosen. The variety so called was known to Morgan
+through the terminology of the Hawaiian Islands, and as the system
+of these islands was not only the first to be recorded, but is also
+that of which even now we have the most complete record, I propose
+to use it as the pattern and to speak of the Hawaiian system where
+Morgan spoke of the Malayan. If now we compare the Hawaiian system
+with the forms of the classificatory system found in other parts of
+Oceania, in Australia, India, Africa or America, we find that it is
+characterised by its extreme simplicity and by the fewness of its
+terms. Distinctions such as those between the father’s brother and the
+mother’s brother, between the father’s sister and the mother’s sister,
+and between the children of brothers or of sisters and the children
+of brother and sister, distinctions which are so generally present in
+the more usual forms of the classificatory system, are here completely
+absent. The problem before us is to discover whether the absence of
+these distinctions can be referred to any social factors. If not, we
+may be driven to suppose that there is something in the structure of
+the Polynesian mind which leads the Hawaiian and the Maori to see
+similarities where most other peoples of rude culture see differences.
+
+The first point to be noted is that in Oceania the distinction between
+the Hawaiian and the more usual forms of the classificatory system
+does not correspond with the distinction between the Polynesian and
+Melanesian peoples. Systems are to be found in Melanesia, as in the
+western Solomons, which closely resemble that of Hawaii, while there
+are Polynesian systems, such as those of Tonga and Tikopia, which are
+so like those of Melanesia that, if they had occurred there, they would
+have attracted no special attention. The difference between the two
+kinds of system is not to be correlated with any difference of race.
+
+Next, if we take Melanesian and Polynesian systems as a whole, we find
+that they do not fall into two sharply marked-off groups, but that
+there are any number of intermediate gradations between the two. It
+would be possible to arrange the classificatory systems of Oceania in a
+series in which it would not be possible to draw the line at any point
+between the different varieties of system which the two ends of the
+series seem to represent. The question arises whether it is possible
+to find any other series of transitions in Oceania which runs parallel
+with the series connecting the two varieties of system of relationship.
+There is no doubt but that this question can be answered in the
+affirmative.
+
+Speaking broadly, there are two main varieties of social organisation
+in Oceania, with an infinite number of intermediate conditions. In one
+variety marriage is regulated by some kind of clan-exogamy, including
+under the term “clan” the moieties of a dual organisation; in the other
+variety marriage is regulated by kinship or genealogical relationship.
+We know of no part of Melanesia where marriage is regulated solely by
+clan-exogamy, but it is possible to arrange Melanesian and Polynesian
+societies in a series according to the different degrees in which the
+principles of genealogical relationship is the determining factor in
+the regulation of marriage. At one end of the series we should have
+places like the Banks Islands, the northern New Hebrides and the Santa
+Cruz Islands, where the clan-organisation is so obviously important
+that it was the only mechanism for the regulation of marriage which was
+recognised even by so skilful an observer as Dr. Codrington. At the
+other end of the series we have places such as the Hawaiian Islands
+and Eddystone Island in the western Solomons, where only the barest
+traces of a clan-organisation are to be found and where marriage is
+regulated solely by genealogical relationship. Between the two are
+numerous intermediate cases, and the series so formed runs so closely
+parallel to that representing the transitions between different forms
+of the classificatory system that it seems out of the question but
+that there should be a relation between the two. Of all the places
+where I have myself worked, the two in which I failed to find any trace
+of the regulation of marriage by means of a clan-organisation were
+the Hawaiian Islands and Eddystone Island, and the systems of both
+places were lacking in just those distinctions the absence of which
+characterised the Malayan system of Morgan. Only in one point did the
+Eddystone system differ from the Hawaiian. Though the mother’s brother
+was classed in nomenclature with the father, there was a term for the
+sister’s son, but it was so little used that in a superficial survey it
+would have escaped notice. Its use was so exceptional that many of the
+islanders were doubtful about its proper meaning. In other parts of the
+Solomons where the clan-organisation persists, but where the regulation
+of marriage by genealogical relationship is equally, if not more,
+important, the systems of relationship show intermediate characters.
+Thus, in the island of Florida the mother’s brother was distinguished
+from the father and there was a term by means of which to distinguish
+cross-cousins from other kinds of cousin, but the father’s sister was
+classed with the mother, and it was habitual to ignore the proper term
+for cross-cousins and to class them in nomenclature with brothers and
+sisters and with cousins of other kinds, as in the Hawaiian system.
+One influential man even applied the term for father to the mother’s
+brother; it was evident that a change is even now in progress which
+would have to go very little farther to make the Florida system
+indistinguishable in structure from that of Hawaii.
+
+Among the western Papuo-Melanesians of New Guinea, again, the systems
+of relationship come very near to the Hawaiian type, and with this
+character there is associated a very high degree of importance of the
+regulation of marriage by genealogical relationship and a vagueness of
+clan-organisation. We have here so close a parallelism between two
+series of social phenomena as to supply as good an example as could be
+wished of the application of the method of concomitant variations in
+the domain of sociology.
+
+The nature of these changes and their relation to the general cultures
+of the peoples who use the different forms of terminology show that the
+transitions are to be associated with a progressive change which has
+taken place in Oceania. In this part of the world the classificatory
+system has been the seat of a process of simplification starting
+from the almost incredible complexity of Pentecost and reaching the
+simplicity of such systems as those of Eddystone or Mekeo. This process
+has gone hand in hand with one in which the regulation of marriage by
+some kind of clan-exogamy has gradually been replaced by a mechanism
+based on relationship as traced by means of pedigrees.
+
+If this conclusion be accepted, it will follow that the more widely
+distributed varieties of the classificatory system of relationship
+are associated with a social structure which has the exogamous social
+group as its essential unit. This position has only to be stated for
+it to become apparent how all the main features of the classificatory
+system are such as would follow directly from such a social structure.
+Wherever the classificatory system is found in association with a
+system of exogamous social groups, the terms of relationship do
+not apply merely to relatives with whom it is possible to trace
+genealogical relationship, but to all the members of a clan of a given
+generation, even if no such relationship with them can be traced. Thus,
+a man will not only apply the term “father” to all the brothers of his
+father, to all the sons’ sons of his father’s father, and to all the
+sons’ sons’ sons of his father’s father’s father, to all the husbands
+of his mother’s sisters and of his mother’s mother’s granddaughters,
+etc., but he will also apply the term to all the members of his
+father’s clan of the same generation as his father and to all the
+husbands of the women of the mother’s clan of the same generation as
+the mother, even when it is quite impossible to show any genealogical
+relationship with them. All these and the other main features of the
+classificatory system become at once natural and intelligible if this
+system had its origin in a social structure in which exogamous social
+groups, such as the clan or moiety, were even more completely and
+essentially the social units than we know them to be to-day among the
+peoples whose social systems have been carefully studied. If you are
+dissatisfied with the word “classificatory” as a term for the system of
+relationship which is found in America, Africa, India, Australia and
+Oceania, you would be perfectly safe in calling it the “clan” system,
+and in inferring the ancient presence of a social structure based on
+the exogamous clan even if this structure were no longer present.
+
+Not only is the general character of the classificatory system exactly
+such as would be the consequence of its origin in a social structure
+founded on the exogamous social group, but many details of these
+systems point in the same direction. Thus, the rigorous distinctions
+between father’s brother and mother’s brother, and between father’s
+sister and mother’s sister, which are characteristic of the usual
+forms of the classificatory system, are the obvious consequence of the
+principle of exogamy. If this principle be in action, these relatives
+must always belong to different social groups, so that it would be
+natural to distinguish them in nomenclature.
+
+Further, there are certain features of the classificatory system which
+suggest its origin in a special form of exogamous social grouping,
+viz., that usually known as the dual system in which there are only two
+social groups or moieties. It is an almost universal feature of the
+classificatory system that the children of brothers are classed with
+the children of sisters. A man applies the same term to his mother’s
+sister’s children which he uses for his father’s brother’s children,
+and the use of this term, being the same as that used for a brother
+or sister, carries with it the most rigorous prohibition of marriage.
+Such a condition would not follow necessarily from a social state in
+which there were more than two social groups. If the society were
+patrilineal, the children of two brothers would necessarily belong to
+the same social group, so that the principle of exogamy would prevent
+marriage between them, but if the women of the group had married into
+different clans, there is no reason arising out of the principle of
+exogamy which should prevent marriage between their children or lead
+to the use of a term common to them and the children of brothers.
+Similarly, if the society were matrilineal, the children of two sisters
+would necessarily belong to the same social group, but this would
+not be the case with the children of brothers who might marry into
+different social groups.
+
+If, however, there be only two social groups, the case is very
+different. It would make no difference whether descent were patrilineal
+or matrilineal. In each case the children of two brothers or of two
+sisters must belong to the same moiety, while the children of brother
+and sister must belong to different moieties. The children of two
+brothers would be just as ineligible as consorts as the children of
+two sisters. Similarly, it would be a natural consequence of the dual
+organisation that the mother’s brother’s children should be classed
+with the father’s sister’s children, but this would not be necessary if
+there were more than two social groups.
+
+I should have liked, if there were time, to deal with other features
+of the classificatory system, but must be content with these examples.
+I hope to have succeeded in showing that the social causation of the
+terminology of relationship goes far beyond the mere dependence of
+features of the system on special forms of marriage, and that the
+character of the classificatory system as a whole has been determined
+by its origin in a specific form of social organisation. I propose now
+to leave the classificatory system for a moment and inquire whether
+another system of denoting and classifying relationships may not
+similarly be shown to be determined by social conditions. The system I
+shall consider is our own. Let us examine this system in its relation
+to the form of social organisation prevalent among ourselves.
+
+Just as among most peoples of rude culture the clan or other
+exogamous group is the essential unit of social organisation, so
+among ourselves this social unit is the family, using this term for
+the group consisting of a man, his wife, and their children. If we
+examine our terms of relationship, we find that those applied to
+individual persons and those used in a narrow and well-defined sense
+are just those in which the family is intimately concerned. The terms
+father, mother, husband and wife, brother and sister, are limited to
+members of the family of the speaker, and the terms father-, mother-,
+brother-, and sister-in-law to the members of the family of the wife
+or husband in the same narrowly restricted sense. Similarly, the
+terms grandfather and grandmother are limited to the parents of the
+father and mother, while the terms grandson and granddaughter are
+only used of the families of the children in the narrow sense. The
+terms uncle and aunt, nephew and niece, are used in a less restricted
+sense, but even these terms are only used of persons who stand in a
+close relation to the family of the speaker. We have only one term
+used with anything approaching the wide connotation of classificatory
+terms of relationship, and this term is used for a group of relatives
+who have as their chief feature in common that they are altogether
+outside the proper circle of the family and have no social obligations
+or privileges. They are as eligible for marriage as any other members
+of the community, and only in the very special cases I considered in
+the first lecture are they brought into any kind of legal relation.
+The dependence of our own use of terms of relationship on the social
+institution of the family seems to me so obvious that I find it
+difficult to understand how anyone who has considered these terms
+can put forward the view that the terminology of relationship is not
+socially conditioned. It seems to me that we have only to have the
+proposition stated that the classificatory system and our own are the
+outcome of the social institutions of the clan and family respectively
+for the social causation of such terminology to become conspicuous. I
+find it difficult to understand why it has not long before this been
+universally recognised. I do not think we can have a better example
+of the confusion and prejudice which have been allowed to envelop the
+subject through the unfortunate introduction of the problem of the
+primitive promiscuity or monogamy of mankind. It is not necessary to
+have an expert knowledge of the classificatory system. It is only
+necessary to consider the terms we have used almost from our cradles
+in relation to their social setting to see how the terminology of
+relationship has been determined by that setting.
+
+This brief study of our own terms of relationship leads me to speak
+about the name by which our system is generally known. Morgan called
+it the “descriptive system,” and this term has been generally adopted.
+I believe, however, that it is wholly inappropriate. Those terms which
+apply to one person and to one person only may be called descriptive
+if you please, though even here the use does not seem very happy. When
+we pass beyond these, however, our terms are no whit more descriptive
+than those of the classificatory system. We speak of a grandfather,
+not of a father’s father or a mother’s father, only distinguishing
+grandfathers in this manner when it is necessary to supplement our
+customary terminology by more exact description. Similarly, we speak
+of a brother-in-law, and only in exceptional circumstances do we use
+forms of language which indicate whether reference is being made to
+the brother of the husband or wife or to the husband of a sister. Such
+occasional usages do not make our system descriptive, and if they be
+held to do so, the classificatory system is just as descriptive as our
+own. All those peoples who use the classificatory system are capable
+of such exact description of relationship as I have mentioned. Indeed,
+classificatory systems are often more descriptive than our own. In
+some forms of this system true descriptive terms are found in habitual
+use. Thus, in the coastal systems of Fiji the mother’s brother is often
+called _ngandina_ (_ngane_, sister of a man, and _tina_, mother), this
+term being used in place of the _vungo_ already mentioned. Similar
+uses of descriptive terms occur in other parts of Melanesia. Thus, in
+Santa Cruz the father’s sister is called _inwerderde_ (_inwe_, sister,
+and _derde_, father). This relative is one for whom Melanesian systems
+of relationship not infrequently possess no special designation, and
+the use of a descriptive term suggests a recent process which has come
+into action in order to denote a relative who had previously lacked any
+special designation.
+
+If “descriptive” is thus an inappropriate name for our own system,
+it will be necessary to find another, and I should like boldly to
+recognise the direct dependence of its characters on the institution of
+the family and to speak of it as the “family system.”
+
+While I thus reject the term “descriptive” as a proper name for the
+terminology of relationship with which we are especially familiar, it
+does not follow that there may not be systems of denoting relationship
+which properly deserve this title. In Samoa a mode of denoting
+relatives is often used in which the great majority of the terms are
+descriptive. Thus, the only term which I could obtain for the father’s
+brother’s son was _atalii o le uso o le tama_, which is literally “son
+of the brother of the father,” and there is some reason to suppose
+that this descriptive usage has come into vogue owing to the total
+inadequacy of the ancient Samoan system to express relationships in
+which the peoples are now interested.
+
+The wide use of such descriptive terms is also found in many systems
+of Europe, as in the Celtic languages, in those of Scandinavia, in
+Lithuanian and Esthonian.[32] A similar mode of denoting relationships
+is found in Semitic languages and among the Shilluks and Dinkas of the
+Anglo-Egyptian Sudan, and since it is from these peoples that I have
+gained my own experience of descriptive terminology, I propose to take
+them as my examples.
+
+[32] See Tables in Morgan’s _Systems ..._, pp. 79-127.
+
+In the Arabic system of relationship used in Egypt many of the terms
+are descriptive; thus, the father’s brother being called _’amm_, the
+father’s brother’s wife is _mirat ’ammi_, the father’s brother’s son
+_ibn ’ammi_, and the father’s brother’s daughter _bint ’ammi_, and
+there is a similar usage for the consorts and children of the father’s
+sister and of the brother and sister of the mother.
+
+Similarly, many Shilluk terms suggest a descriptive character, the
+father’s brother being _wa_, the wife of the father’s brother is
+_chiwa_, the father’s brother’s son is _uwa_, and his daughter is
+_nyuwa_. The father’s sister being _waja_, her son and daughter are
+_uwaja_ and _nyuwaja_ respectively. Similar descriptive terms are
+used by the Dinkas. The father’s brother being _walen_, the father’s
+brother’s son is _manwalen_ and his daughter _yanwalen_; the mother’s
+brother being _ninar_, the mother’s brother’s son is _manninar_ and his
+daughter _yanninar_.
+
+According to the main thesis of these lectures, these descriptive
+usages should own some definite social cause. The descriptive
+terminology seems to be particularly definite in the case of cousins,
+and it might be suggested that they are dependent, at any rate in part
+and in so far as Egypt is concerned, on the prevalence of marriage
+with a cousin. Marriages with the daughter of a father’s brother or of
+a mother’s brother are especially orthodox and popular in Egypt, and
+different degrees of preference for marriage with different classes of
+cousin would produce just such a social need as would have led to the
+definite distinction of the different kinds of cousin from one another
+by means of descriptive terms.
+
+It is more probable, however, that the use of descriptive terms in the
+languages of the Semites and of the Shilluks and Dinkas has been the
+outcome of a definite form of social organisation, viz., that in which
+the social unit is neither the family in the narrow sense, nor the
+clan, but that body of persons of common descent living in one house or
+in some other kind of close association which we call the patriarchal
+or extended family, the _Grossfamilie_ of the Germans. It is a feature
+of the Semitic and Nilotic systems, not only to distinguish the four
+chief categories of cousin, but also the four chief kinds of uncle or
+aunt, viz., the father’s brother, the father’s sister, the mother’s
+brother and the mother’s sister, all of whom are habitually classed
+together in our system, while some of them are classed with the father
+or mother in the classificatory system. The Semitic and Nilotic
+terminology is such as would follow from a form of social organisation
+in which the more intimate relationships of the family in the narrow
+sense are definitely recognised, but yet certain uncles, aunts, and
+cousins are of so much importance as to make it necessary for social
+purposes that they shall be denoted exactly. The brothers of the father
+and the unmarried sisters of the father would be of the same social
+group as the father, while the brothers and unmarried sisters of the
+mother would be of a different social group, which would account for
+their distinctive nomenclature, while within the social group it would
+be necessary to distinguish the father from his brothers. It would be
+too cumbrous to call this variety of system after the extended family,
+and I suggest that it should be called the “kindred” system.
+
+Analogy with other parts of the world suggests that all those of the
+same generation in the social group formed by the extended family may
+once have been classed together under one term, and that, as later
+there arose social motives requiring the distinction of different
+relatives so classed together, descriptive terms came into use to
+make the necessary distinctions. You must please regard this only
+as a suggestion. We need far more detailed evidence concerning the
+social status of different relatives among the peoples who use these
+descriptive terms. Such knowledge as we possess seems to point to the
+dependence of the Semitic and Sudanese terminology upon the social
+institution of the extended family, just as our own system depends
+on the social institution of the family in the narrow sense and the
+classificatory system upon the clan.
+
+If this descriptive mode of nomenclature be thus the outcome of a
+social organisation of which the essential element is the extended
+family, I need hardly point out how natural it is that we should
+find this kind of nomenclature so widely in Europe. The presence of
+this descriptive terminology in Celtic and Scandinavian languages,
+in Lithuanian and Esthonian, would be examples of the persistence of
+a form of nomenclature which had its origin in the kindred of the
+extended family. On this view we must believe that, in other languages
+of Europe, this mode of nomenclature has gradually been replaced by one
+dependent on the social institution of the family in the narrow sense.
+
+At this point I should like to sum up briefly the position to which
+our argument has taken us. I have first shown the dependence of a
+number of special features of the classificatory system of relationship
+upon special forms of marriage. Then I have shown that certain
+broad varieties of the classificatory system are to be referred to
+different forms of social organisation and to the different degrees
+in which the regulation of marriage by means of clan-exogamy has
+been replaced by a mechanism dependent upon kinship or genealogical
+relationship. From that I was led to refer the general features of
+the classificatory system to the dependence of this system upon the
+social unit of the clan as opposed to the family which I believe to
+be the basis of our own terminology of relationship. I then pointed
+to several features of the classificatory system which suggest that
+it arose in that special variety of the clan-organisation in which
+a community consists of two exogamous moieties, forming the social
+structure usually known as the dual organisation. I considered more
+fully the dependence of our own mode of denoting relatives upon the
+social institution of the family, and then a study of the descriptive
+terminology of relationship has led me to suggest that certain modes of
+denoting relationship in Egypt, the Sudan and many European countries
+may be examples of a third main variety of system of relationship
+which has arisen out of the patriarchal or extended family. We should
+thus have three main varieties of system of relationship in place of
+the two which have hitherto been recognised, having their origins
+respectively in the clan, in the family in the narrow sense, and in
+the extended or patriarchal family. These three varieties may be
+regarded as genera within each of which are species and varieties
+depending upon special social conditions which have arisen within
+each kind of social grouping, either as the result of changes within
+each form of social organisation or of transitions from one form to
+another. We know of a far larger number of such varieties within the
+classificatory system than within those due to the two forms of the
+family, and this is probably due in some measure to the fact that the
+classificatory system is still by far the most widely distributed form
+over the earth’s surface. Still more important, however, is the fact
+that among the peoples who use the classificatory system there is an
+infinitely greater variety of social institution, and especially of
+forms of marriage, than exist among civilised peoples whose main social
+unit, the family, is not one which is capable of any extended range of
+variation. The result of the complete survey has been to justify my use
+of the classificatory system as the means whereby to demonstrate the
+dependence of the terminology of relationship upon social conditions.
+It is the great variability of this mode of denoting relatives which
+makes it so valuable an instrument for the study of the laws which have
+governed the history of that department of language by which mankind
+has denoted those who stand in social relations to himself.
+
+       *       *       *       *       *
+
+You may have been wondering whether I am going to say anything about
+the merits of the controversy which has till now given to systems of
+relationship their chief interest among students of sociology. I have
+so far left on one side the subjects which have been the main ground
+of controversy ever since the time of Morgan. You will have gathered
+that I regard it as a grave misfortune for the science of sociology
+that the topics of promiscuity and group-marriage should have been
+thrust by Morgan into the prominent place which they have ever since
+occupied in the theoretical study of relationship. Even now I should
+have liked to leave them on one side on the ground that the evidence
+is as yet insufficient to make them profitable subjects for such exact
+inquiry as I believe to be the proper business of sociology. Their
+very prominence, however, makes it impossible to leave them wholly
+unconsidered, but I propose to deal with them very briefly.
+
+I begin with the question whether the classificatory system of
+relationship provides us with any evidence that mankind once possessed
+a form of social organisation, or rather such an absence of social
+organisation, as would accompany a condition of general promiscuity
+in which, if one can speak of marriage at all, marriage was practised
+between all and any members of the community, including brothers and
+sisters. I can deal with this subject very briefly because I hope to
+have succeeded elsewhere in knocking away the support on which the
+whole of Morgan’s own construction rested.
+
+Morgan deduced his stage of promiscuity from the Hawaiian system,
+which he supposed to be the most primitive form of classificatory
+nomenclature. In an article published in 1907 I showed[33] that it
+rather represents a late stage in the history of the more ordinary
+forms of the classificatory system. My conclusion at that time was
+based on the scanty evidence derived from the relatively few Oceanic
+systems which had then been recorded, but my work since that article
+was written has shown the absolute correctness of my earlier opinion,
+which I can now support by a far larger body of evidence than was
+available in 1907. It remains possible, however, that the Hawaiian
+system may have had its source in promiscuity, even though this
+condition be late rather than primitive, but it would be going beyond
+the scope of these lectures to deal fully with this subject here. I
+cannot forbear, however, from mentioning that Hawaiian promiscuity,
+in so far as it existed, was not the condition of the whole people,
+but only of the chiefs who alone were allowed to contract brother
+and sister marriages, while I have evidence that the avoidance of
+brother and sister in Melanesia, which has so often been regarded as
+a survival of man’s early promiscuity, is capable of a very different
+explanation.[34] Our available knowledge, whether derived from features
+of the classificatory system or from other social facts, does not
+provide one shred of evidence in favour of such a condition as was put
+forward by Morgan as the earliest stage of human society, nor is there
+any evidence that such promiscuity has ever been the ruling principle
+of a people at any later stage of the history of mankind.
+
+[33] _Anthropological Essays presented to E. B. Tylor_, Oxford, 1907,
+p. 309.
+
+[34] For the full evidence on these topics see my forthcoming book _The
+History of Melanesian Society_.
+
+The subject of group-marriage is one about which I do not find it
+possible to speak so dogmatically. It would take me more than another
+lecture to deal adequately with the Melanesian evidence alone, and I
+must content myself with two remarks. Firstly, I think it desirable
+to throw aside the term group-marriage as only confusing the issue,
+and to speak rather of a state of organised sexual communism, in which
+sexual relations are recognised as orthodox between the men of one
+social group and the women of another. Secondly, the classificatory
+system has several features which would follow naturally from such a
+condition of sexual communism. I have evidence from Melanesia which
+places beyond question the former presence of such a condition, with
+features of culture which become readily explicable if they be the
+survivals of such a state of sexual communism as is suggested by the
+terminology of the classificatory system. This evidence comes from
+only one part of the world, but it is enough to convince me that we
+have no right to dismiss from our minds a state of organised sexual
+communism as a feature of the social development of mankind. The wide
+distribution of the classificatory system would suggest that this
+communism has been very general, but it need not have been universal,
+and even if the widespread existence of organised sexual communism be
+established, it would not follow that it represents the earliest stage
+in the evolution of human society. There are certain features even of
+the classificatory system itself which suggest that, if this system be
+founded in sexual communism, this communism was not primitive, but grew
+out of a condition in which only such ties of kinship were recognised
+as would result from the social institution of the family.
+
+I must be content with this brief reference to the subject. The object
+of these lectures is to demonstrate the dependence of the terminology
+of relationship upon social conditions, and the dependence of the
+classificatory system upon a condition of sexual communism is not
+now capable of demonstration. The classificatory mode of denoting
+relationship should, however, act as a suggestion and stimulus, and as
+a preventative of dogmatic statement in a part of our subject which, in
+spite of its entrancing interest, still lies only at the edge of our
+slowly spreading circle of exact knowledge.
+
+In conclusion, I should like to point out briefly some of the lessons
+of more general interest which may be learnt from the facts I have
+brought before you in these lectures. I hope that one result has been
+to convince you of the danger lying in the use of the _reductio ad
+absurdum_ argument when dealing with cultures widely different from our
+own. In the literature of the subject one often meets the adjectives
+“absurd” and “impossible” applied in some cases to social conditions
+in which the actual existence of the absurdities or impossibilities
+can be demonstrated. I may take as an example the argument of Mr. N. W.
+Thomas, which I have already mentioned, in which the classing of the
+maternal grandfather with the elder brother by the Dieri is regarded
+as reducing to an absurdity the contention that classificatory terms
+express ties of kinship. If Mr. Thomas had had a more lively faith in
+the social meaning of terms of relationship, he might have been led to
+notice that the Dieri marry the granddaughter of a brother, a fact he
+appears, in common with many other readers of Howitt, to have missed;
+one result of this marriage is to bring about just such a relationship
+as Howitt records without a man being his own great-uncle, as is
+supposed to be necessary by Mr. Thomas.
+
+Still another example may be taken from Professor Kroeber. He states
+that the classing together of the grandfather and the father-in-law
+which is found in the Dakota system, when worked out to its
+implications, would lead to the absurd conclusion that marriage with
+the mother was once customary among the Sioux. Here again, if Professor
+Kroeber had been less imbued with his belief in a purely linguistic
+and psychological chain of causation, and had been ready to entertain
+the idea that there might be a social meaning, he must have been led
+to see that the features of nomenclature in question would follow from
+other forms of marriage, and two of these, whatever their apparent
+improbability in America, cannot well be called absurd, since they are
+known to occur in other parts of the world. Following Riggs, Professor
+Kroeber does not specify which kinds of grandfather and father-in-law
+are classed together in Dakotan nomenclature, but in the full list
+given by Morgan, it is evident that one term is used for the fathers of
+both father and mother and for the fathers of both husband and wife.
+The classing of the father’s father with the wife’s father would be a
+natural result of marriage with the father’s sister, while the common
+nomenclature for father’s father and husband’s father would result from
+marriage with the brother’s daughter. It is not without significance
+that the features of nomenclature which would be the result of one
+or other, or of both these marriages, occur in a system which also
+bears evidence of the cross-cousin marriage, for these three forms
+of marriage occur in conjunction in one part of Melanesia, viz., the
+Torres Islands.
+
+The foregoing instance, together with many others scattered through
+these lectures, will have pointed clearly to another lesson. In
+the present state of our knowledge a working scheme or hypothesis
+has largely to be judged by its utility. A way of regarding social
+phenomena which obstructs inquiry and leads people to overlook facts
+has its disadvantages, to say the least, while a scheme or hypothesis
+which leads people to worry out and discover things which do not lie on
+the surface will establish a strong claim on our consideration, even
+if it should ultimately turn out to be only the partial truth. I will
+give only one instance to illustrate how a belief in the dependence of
+the terminology of relationship on forms of marriage might act as a
+stimulus to research.
+
+In a system from the United Provinces recorded by Mr. E. A. H. Blunt
+in the Report of the last Indian Census, one term, _bahu_, is used
+for the son’s wife, for the wife, and for the mother.[35] Mr. Blunt
+puts on one side without hesitation the possibility that such common
+nomenclature can have been the result of any form of marriage, and
+ascribes it to the custom whereby a man and his wife live with the
+husband’s parents, in consequence of which the son’s wife, who is
+called _bahu_ by her husband, is also called _bahu_ by everyone else in
+the house. The causation of the common nomenclature which is thus put
+forward is a possible, perhaps even a probable, explanation. In such a
+case we should have a social chain of causation in which the son’s wife
+is called _bahu_ because she is one of a social group bound together
+by the ties of a common habitation. It can do no harm, however, to
+bear in mind as an alternative the possibility that the terminology
+may have arisen out of a form of marriage. It is evident that the use
+of a common term for the wife and the son’s wife would follow from a
+form of polyandry in which a man and his son have a wife in common. A
+further result of this form of marriage would be that the wife of the
+son, being also the wife of his father, would have the status of a
+mother.[36] We have no evidence for the presence of such a marriage in
+India, but our knowledge of the sociology of the more backward peoples
+of India is not so complete that we can afford to neglect any clue. The
+possibility suggested by the mode of using the term _bahu_ should lead
+us to look for other evidence of such a form of polyandry among the
+ruder elements of the population of India, of whose social structure
+our present knowledge is so fragmentary.
+
+[35] _Census of India_, 1911, vol. xv., p. 234.
+
+[36] In such a case the use of the term by other members of the
+household, including women, would be the result of a later extension of
+meaning.
+
+Another important result of our study of the terminology of
+relationship is that it helps us to understand the proper place of
+psychological explanation in sociology. These lectures have largely
+been devoted to the demonstration of the failure to explain features
+of the terminology of relationship on psychological grounds. If this
+demonstration has been successful, it is not because the terminology
+of relationship is anything peculiar, differing from other bodies of
+sociological facts; it is because in relationship we have to do with
+definite and clean-cut facts. The terminology of relationship is only
+a specially favourable example by means of which to show the value
+of an attitude towards, and mode of treatment of, social facts which
+hold good, though less conspicuously, throughout the whole field of
+sociology.
+
+In social, as in all other kinds of human activity, psychological
+factors must have an essential part. I have myself in these lectures
+pointed to psychological considerations as elements in the problems
+with which the sociologist has to deal. These psychological elements
+are, however, only concomitants of social processes with which it is
+possible to deal apart from their psychological aspect. It has been
+the task of these lectures to refer the social facts of relationship
+to antecedent social conditions, and I believe that this is the proper
+method of sociology. Even at the present time, however, it is possible
+to support sociological arguments by means of considerations provided
+by psychological motives, and the assistance thus rendered to sociology
+will become far greater as the science of social psychology advances.
+
+This is, however, a process very different from the interpolation of
+psychological facts as links in the chain of causation connecting
+social antecedents with social consequences. It is in no spirit of
+hostility to social psychology, but in the hope that it may help us to
+understand its proper place in the study of social institutions that
+I venture to put forward the method followed in these lectures as one
+proper to the science of sociology.[37]
+
+[37] See also “Survival in Sociology,” _Sociological Review_, 1913,
+vol. vi., p. 293. I hope shortly to deal more fully with the relations
+between sociology and social psychology.
+
+It may be that there will be those who will accept my main position,
+but will urge that these lectures have been devoted to the criticism
+of an extreme position, the position taken up by Professor Kroeber.
+They may say that they have never believed in the purely psychological
+causation of the terminology of relationship. In reply to such an
+attitude I can only express my conviction that the paper of Professor
+Kroeber is only the explicit and clear statement of an attitude which
+is implicit in the work of nearly all, if not all, the opponents of
+Morgan since McLennan. Whether they have themselves recognised it
+or not, I believe that it has been this underlying attitude towards
+sociological problems which has prevented them from seeing what is
+good in Morgan’s work, from sifting out the chaff from the wheat of
+his argument, and from recognising how great is the importance to the
+science of sociology of the body of facts which Morgan was the first to
+collect and study. I feel that we owe a debt of gratitude to Professor
+Kroeber for having brought the matter into the open and for having
+presented, as a clear issue, a fundamental problem of the methods of
+sociology.
+
+Lastly, I should like to point out how rigorous and exact has been the
+process of the determination of the nomenclature of relationship by
+social conditions which has been demonstrated in these lectures. We
+have here a case in which the principle of determinism applies with a
+rigour and definiteness equal to that of any of the exact sciences.
+According to my scheme, not only has the general character of systems
+of relationship been strictly determined by social conditions, but
+every detail of these systems has also been so determined. Even so
+small and apparently insignificant a feature as the classing of the
+sister-in-law with the sister has been found to lead back to a definite
+social condition arising out of the regulation of marriage and of
+sexual relations. If sociology is to become a science fit to rank
+with other sciences, it must, like them, be rigorously deterministic.
+Social phenomena do not come into being of themselves. The proposition
+that we class two relatives together in nomenclature because the
+relationships are similar is, if it stand alone, nothing more than a
+form of words. It is incumbent on those who believe in the importance
+of the psychological similarity of social phenomena to show in what
+the supposed similarity consists and how it has come about--in other
+words, how it has been determined. It has been my chief object in these
+lectures to show that, in so far as such similarities exist in the case
+of relationship, they have been determined by social conditions. Only
+by attention to this aim throughout the whole field of social phenomena
+can we hope to rid sociology of the reproach, so often heard, that it
+is not a science; only thus can we refute those who go still further
+and claim that it can never be a science.
+
+
+
+
+INDEX
+
+
+  “Absurd” in sociology, 32, 87.
+
+  America, North, 10, 18, 49, 55.
+
+  Anaiteum, 22.
+
+  Aniwa, 22.
+
+  Assiniboin, 51.
+
+  Australia, 11, 32.
+
+  Avoidance, 85.
+
+
+  Banks Is., 12, 16, 28, 42, 53, 61, 68.
+
+  Bellamy, R. L., 56.
+
+  Blunt, E. A. H., 90.
+
+  Bougainville I., 40.
+
+  Brother-in-law, functions of, 12.
+
+  Buin, 40.
+
+
+  Canarese, 47.
+
+  Celtic terms, 78, 81.
+
+  Cherokees, 53.
+
+  Chiefs, 85.
+
+  Choctas, 53.
+
+  Christianity, 30.
+
+  Clan, 67, 71, 74.
+
+  Classes, matrimonial, 32, 39.
+
+  Classificatory relationship, 2, 4, 19, 83.
+
+  Codrington, Dr., 28, 30, 68.
+
+  Communism in property, 12;
+    sexual, 62, 86.
+
+  Concomitant variations, method of, 70.
+
+  “Creek” Indians, 53.
+
+  Crees, 50, 55.
+
+  Cross-cousins, 20, 28;
+    _see_ marriage.
+
+  “Crow” Indians, 53.
+
+
+  Dakotas, 51, 88.
+
+  Descent, 34, 39, 73.
+
+  Descriptive system, 76;
+    terms, 77, 81.
+
+  Determinism, 7, 93.
+
+  Dieri, 32, 37, 88.
+
+  Dinkas, 78.
+
+  Dorsey, J. O., 51.
+
+  Dual organisation, 32, 34, 58, 67, 72, 82.
+
+
+  Eddystone I., 68, 70.
+
+  Egidi, Father, 16.
+
+  Egypt, 78, 79.
+
+  English terms of relationship, 13, 74.
+
+  Eromanga, 22.
+
+  Esthonia, 78, 81.
+
+  Exchange of brothers and sisters, 43.
+
+  Exogamy, 68, 72.
+
+
+  Family, 74, 77, 87;
+    extended, 79, 81.
+
+  Father’s sister, functions of, 16.
+
+  Field, Rev. J. T., 57.
+
+  Fiji, 22, 31, 39, 77.
+
+  Fison, Rev. L., 26.
+
+  Florida, 45, 69.
+
+  Freire-Marreco, Miss B., 53, 55.
+
+  Functions of relatives, 6, 11, 12, 15.
+
+
+  Gait, E. A., 47.
+
+  Genealogical method, 23, 31.
+
+  Genealogical relationship, 68, 70.
+
+  Gillen, F. J., 11.
+
+  Gonds, 26.
+
+  Group-marriage, 6, 86.
+
+  Guadalcanar, 23, 45.
+
+
+  Haidahs, 54.
+
+  Hawaiian Is., 15, 66, 68;
+    system, 66, 84.
+
+  Head, sanctity of, 12.
+
+  Hopi Indians, 55.
+
+  Howitt, A. W., 11, 88.
+
+
+  India, 18, 26, 47, 90.
+
+
+  Kindred, 80.
+
+  Kinship, 1, 67, 82.
+
+  Kohler, J., 8, 19.
+
+  Kroeber, A. L., 9, 25, 52, 60, 62, 64, 88, 93.
+
+  Kuni, 16.
+
+
+  Lithuania, 78, 81.
+
+
+  McLennan, J. F., 6, 17.
+
+  Malayalam, 47.
+
+  “Malayan” system, 65, 68.
+
+  Maori, 66.
+
+  Marriage, 1, 60;
+    between brother and sister, 85;
+    by exchange, 43;
+    group-, 6, 86;
+    regulation of, 67;
+    with brother’s daughter, 89;
+    with brother’s granddaughter, 34, 37, 56;
+    with cousin, 79;
+    with cross-cousin, 20, 39, 43, 47, 49, 54;
+    with deceased wife’s sister, 65;
+    with father’s sister, 89;
+    with wife of father’s father, 40, 57;
+    with wife of mother’s brother, 30, 33, 52.
+
+  Massim, 56.
+
+  Mbau, 22.
+
+  Mekeo, 16, 70.
+
+  Melanesia, 14, 19, 28, 45, 52, 61, 66, 77, 85, 89.
+
+  Morgan, Lewis, 4, 10, 18, 26, 47, 50, 65, 84, 93.
+
+  Mother’s brother, functions of, 15.
+
+
+  New Hebrides, 22, 31, 68.
+
+  New Guinea, 16, 56, 69.
+
+  Niue, 15.
+
+
+  Pantutun, John, 33, 37.
+
+  Pawnees, 53, 54.
+
+  Pedigrees, 31, 70.
+
+  Pentecost I., 31.
+
+  Polyandry, 7, 90.
+
+  Polynesia, 15, 61, 66.
+
+  Prediction, 26.
+
+  Promiscuity, 6, 75, 84.
+
+  Psychology, 10, 17, 24, 29, 38, 52, 62, 63, 66, 91, 94.
+
+  Pueblo Indians, 53.
+
+
+  “Red Knives” Indians, 49.
+
+  Riggs, Rev. S. R., 51, 89.
+
+  Roth, W., 11.
+
+
+  Salutations, 7, 10.
+
+  Samoa, 77.
+
+  San Cristoval, 46.
+
+  Santa Cruz, 15, 68, 77.
+
+  Scandinavia, 78, 81.
+
+  Seligmann, C. G., 56.
+
+  Semitic terms, 78, 81.
+
+  Shilluks, 78.
+
+  Sioux, 53, 54, 88.
+
+  Sladen Trust, 14.
+
+  Sociology, 10, 26, 70, 84, 92, 94.
+
+  Solomon Is., 15, 23, 45, 67, 68.
+
+  Spencer, B., 11.
+
+  Sudan, 78, 81.
+
+  Survival, 39, 43, 46, 48, 59, 86, 92.
+
+  Swanton, J. R., 55.
+
+
+  Tamil, 47.
+
+  Tanna, 22.
+
+  Telegu, 47.
+
+  Tewa Indians, 53.
+
+  Thomas, N. W., 32, 88.
+
+  Thurnwald, R., 40.
+
+  Tikopia, 15, 67.
+
+  Todas, 49.
+
+  Tonga, 15, 67.
+
+  Torres Is., 89.
+
+  Torres Straits, 11, 44.
+
+  Trobriand Is., 55.
+
+  Tubetube, 57.
+
+
+  Wagawaga, 56, 58.
+
+  Wedau, 58.
+
+  Widow, 12, 30, 41.
+
+
+  “Yellow Knife” Indians, 49.
+
+  Ysabel, 46.
+
+
+GARDEN CITY PRESS LIMITED, PRINTERS, LETCHWORTH.
+
+
+
+
+LIST OF STUDIES IN ECONOMICS & POLITICAL SCIENCE.
+
+_A Series of Monographs by Lecturers and Students connected with the
+London School of Economics and Political Science._
+
+
+EDITED BY THE
+
+DIRECTOR OF THE LONDON SCHOOL OF ECONOMICS AND POLITICAL SCIENCE.
+
+~1. The History of Local Rates in England.~ The substance of five
+lectures given at the School in November and December, 1895. By EDWIN
+CANNAN, M.A., LL.D. 1896; second, enlarged edition, 1912; xv and 215
+pp., Crown 8vo, cloth. 3s. 6d. net.
+
+  _P. S. King and Son._
+
+~2. Select Documents Illustrating the History of Trade Unionism.~
+I.--THE TAILORING TRADE. By F. W. GALTON. With a Preface by SIDNEY
+WEBB, LL.B. 1896; 242 pp., Cr. 8vo, cloth. 5s.
+
+  _P. S. King and Son._
+
+~3. German Social Democracy.~ Six lectures delivered at the School in
+February and March, 1896. By the Hon. BERTRAND RUSSELL, B.A., late
+Fellow of Trinity College, Cambridge. With an Appendix on Social
+Democracy and the Woman Question in Germany. By ALYS RUSSELL, B.A.
+1896; 204 pp., Cr. 8vo, cloth. 3s. 6d.
+
+  _P. S. King and Son._
+
+~4. The Referendum in Switzerland.~ By M. SIMON DEPLOIGE, University of
+Louvain. With a Letter on the Referendum in Belgium by M. J. VAN DEN
+HEUVEL, Professor of International Law in the University of Louvain.
+Translated by C. P. TREVELYAN, M.A., Trinity College, Cambridge, and
+edited with Notes, Introduction, Bibliography, and Appendices, by
+LILIAN TOMN (Mrs. Knowles), of Girton College, Cambridge, Research
+Student at the School. 1898; x and 344 pp., Cr. 8vo, cloth, 7s. 6d.
+
+  _P. S. King and Son._
+
+~5. The Economic Policy of Colbert.~ By A. J. SARGENT, M.A., Senior
+Hulme Exhibitioner, Brasenose College, Oxford; and Whately Prizeman,
+1897, Trinity College, Dublin. 1899; viii and 138 pp., Cr. 8vo, cloth.
+2s. 6d.
+
+  _P. S. King and Son._
+
+~6. Local Variations in Wages.~ (The Adam Smith Prize, Cambridge
+University, 1898.) By F. W. LAWRENCE, M.A., Fellow of Trinity College,
+Cambridge. 1899; viii and 90 pp., with Index and 18 Maps and Diagrams.
+Quarto, 11 in. by 8-1/2 in., cloth. 8s. 6d.
+
+  _Longmans, Green and Co._
+
+~7. The Receipt Roll of the Exchequer for Michaelmas Term of the
+Thirty-first Year of Henry II. (1185).~ A unique fragment transcribed
+and edited by the Class in Palæography and Diplomatic, under the
+supervision of the Lecturer, HUBERT HALL, F.S.A., of H.M. Public Record
+Office. With thirty-one Facsimile Plates in Collotype and Parallel
+readings from the contemporary Pipe Roll. 1899; vii and 37 pp.; Folio,
+15-1/2 in. by 11-1/2 in., in green cloth; 3 Copies left. Apply to the
+Director of the London School of Economics.
+
+~8. Elements of Statistics.~ By ARTHUR L. BOWLEY, M.A., Sc.D., F.S.S.,
+Cobden and Adam Smith Prizeman, Cambridge; Guy Silver Medallist of the
+Royal Statistical Society; Newmarch Lecturer, 1897-98. 500 pp., and 40
+Diagrams, Demy 8vo, cloth. 1901; Third edition, 1907; viii and 336 pp.
+10s. 6d. net.
+
+  _P. S. King and Son._
+
+~9. The Place of Compensation in Temperance Reform.~ By C. P. SANGER,
+M.A., late Fellow of Trinity College, Cambridge; Barrister-at-Law.
+1901; viii and 136 pp., Crown 8vo, cloth, 2s. 6d. net.
+
+  _P. S. King and Son._
+
+~10. A History of Factory Legislation.~ By B. L. HUTCHINS and A.
+HARRISON (Mrs. Spencer), B.A., D.Sc. (Econ.), London. With a Preface
+by SIDNEY WEBB, LL.B. 1903; new and revised edition, 1911, xvi and 298
+pp., Demy 8vo, cloth. 6s. net.
+
+  _P. S. King and Son._
+
+~11. The Pipe Roll of the Exchequer of the See of Winchester for
+the Fourth Year of the Episcopate of Peter Des Roches (1207).~
+Transcribed and edited from the original Roll in the possession of
+the Ecclesiastical Commissioners by the Class in Palæography and
+Diplomatic, under the supervision of the Lecturer, HUBERT HALL, F.S.A.,
+of H.M. Public Record Office. With a frontispiece giving a Facsimile
+of the Roll. 1903; xlviii and 100 pp., Folio, 13-1/2 in. by 8-1/2 in.,
+green cloth. 15s. net.
+
+  _P. S. King and Son._
+
+~12. Self-Government in Canada and How it was Achieved. The Story of
+Lord Durham’s Report.~ By F. BRADSHAW, B.A., D.Sc. (Econ.), London;
+Senior Hulme Exhibitioner, Brasenose College, Oxford. 1903; 414 pp.,
+Demy 8vo, cloth. 3s. 6d. net.
+
+  _P. S. King and Son._
+
+~13. History of the Commercial and Financial Relations Between England
+and Ireland from the Period of the Restoration.~ By ALICE EFFIE MURRAY
+(Mrs. Radice), D.Sc. (Econ.), former Student at Girton College,
+Cambridge; Research Student of the London School of Economics and
+Political Science. 1903; 486 pp., Demy 8vo, cloth. 3s. 6d. net.
+
+  _P. S. King and Son._
+
+~14. The English Peasantry and the Enclosure of Common Fields.~ By
+GILBERT SLATER, M.A., St. John’s College, Cambridge; D.Sc. (Econ.),
+London. 1906; 337 pp., Demy 8vo, cloth. 10s. 6d. net.
+
+  _Constable and Co._
+
+~15. A History of the English Agricultural Labourer.~ By DR. W.
+HASBACH, Professor of Economics in the University of Kiel. Translated
+from the Second Edition (1908), by RUTH KENYON. Introduction by SIDNEY
+WEBB, LL.B. 1908; xvi and 470 pp., Demy 8vo, cloth. 7s. 6d. net.
+
+  _P. S. King and Son._
+
+~16. A Colonial Autocracy: New South Wales under Governor Macquarie
+(1810-1821).~ By MARION PHILLIPS, B.A., Melbourne, D.Sc. (Econ.),
+London. 1909; xxiii and 336 pp., Demy 8vo, cloth. 10s. 6d. net.
+
+  _P. S. King and Son._
+
+~17. India and the Tariff Problem.~ By H. B. LEES SMITH, M.A., M.P.
+1909; 120 pp., Crown 8vo, cloth. 3s. 6d. net.
+
+  _Constable and Co._
+
+~18. Practical Notes on the Management of Elections.~ Three Lectures
+delivered at the School in November, 1909, by ELLIS T. POWELL, LL.B.,
+B.Sc. (Econ.), Fellow of the Royal Historical and Royal Economic
+Societies, of the Inner Temple, Barrister-at-Law. 1909; 52 pp., 8vo,
+paper. 1s. 6d. net.
+
+  _P. S. King and Son._
+
+~19. The Political Development of Japan.~ By G. E. UYEHARA, B.A.,
+Washington, D.Sc. (Econ.), London. xxiv and 296 pp., Demy 8vo, cloth.
+1910. 8s. 6d. net.
+
+  _Constable and Co._
+
+~20. National and Local Finance.~ By J. WATSON GRICE, D.Sc. (Econ.),
+London. Preface by SIDNEY WEBB, LL.B. 1910; 428 pp., Demy 8vo, cloth.
+10s. 6d. net.
+
+  _P. S. King and Son._
+
+~21. An Example of Communal Currency.~ Facts about the Guernsey
+Market-house. By J. THEODORE HARRIS, B.A., with an Introduction by
+SIDNEY WEBB, LL.B., 1911; xiv and 62 pp., Crown 8vo, cloth, 1s. 6d.
+net; paper, 1s. net.
+
+  _P. S. King and Son._
+
+~22. Municipal Origins.~ History of Private Bill Legislation. By F. H.
+SPENCER, LL.B., D.Sc. (Econ.); with a Preface by Sir EDWARD CLARKE,
+K.C. 1911; xi and 333 pp., Demy 8vo, cloth. 10s. 6d. net.
+
+  _Constable and Co._
+
+~23. Seasonal Trades.~ By Various Authors. With an Introduction by
+SIDNEY WEBB. Edited by SIDNEY WEBB, LL.B., and ARNOLD FREEMAN, M.A.
+1912; xi and 410 pp., Demy 8vo, cloth. 7s. 6d. net.
+
+  _Constable and Co._
+
+~24. Grants in Aid.~ A Criticism and a Proposal. By SIDNEY WEBB, LL.B.
+1911; vii and 135 pp., Demy 8vo, cloth. 5s. net.
+
+  _Longmans, Green and Co._
+
+~25. The Panama Canal: A Study in International Law.~ By H. ARIAS,
+B.A., LL.D. 1911; xiv and 188 pp., 2 maps, bibliography, Demy 8vo,
+cloth. 10s. 6d. net.
+
+  _P. S. King and Co._
+
+~26. Combination Among Railway Companies.~ By W. A. ROBERTSON, B.A.
+1912; 105 pp., Demy 8vo, cloth. 1s. 6d. net; paper, 1s. net.
+
+  _Constable and Co._
+
+~27. War and the Private Citizen~: Studies in International Law. By A.
+PEARCE HIGGINS, M.A., LL.D.; with Introductory Note by the Rt. Hon.
+ARTHUR COHEN, K.C. 1912; xvi and 200 pp., Demy 8vo, cloth. 5s. net.
+
+  _P. S. King and Son._
+
+~28. Life in an English Village~: An Economic and Historical Survey of
+the Parish of Corsley, in Wiltshire. By M. F. DAVIES. 1909; xiii and
+319 pp., illustrations, bibliography, Demy 8vo, cloth. 10s. 6d. net.
+
+  _T. Fisher Unwin._
+
+~29. English Apprenticeship and Child Labour~: A History. By O. JOCELYN
+DUNLOP, D.Sc. (Econ.), London; with a Supplementary Section on the
+Modern Problem of Juvenile Labour, by the Author and R. D. DENMAN, M.P.
+1912; pp. 390, bibliography, Demy 8vo, cloth. 10s. 6d. net.
+
+  _T. Fisher Unwin._
+
+~30. Origin of Property and the Formation of the Village Community.~ By
+J. ST. LEWINSKI, D.Ec.Sc., Brussels. 1913; xi. and 71 pp., Demy 8vo,
+cloth. 3s. 6d. net.
+
+  _Constable and Co._
+
+~31. The Modern Tendency toward Industrial Combination in some Spheres
+of British Industry.~ By G. R. CARTER, M.A. 1913; xi and 386 pp., Demy
+8vo, cloth. 6s. net.
+
+  _Constable and Co._
+
+~32. Tariffs at Work~: An outline of Practical Tariff Administration.
+By JOHN HEDLEY HIGGINSON, B.Sc. (Econ.), Mitchell Student of the
+University of London; Cobden Prizeman and Silver Medallist. 1913; 150
+pp., Crown 8vo, cloth. 2s. net.
+
+  _P. S. King and Son._
+
+~33. English Taxation, 1640-1799.~ An Essay on Policy and Opinion. By
+WILLIAM KENNEDY, M.A., Shaw Research Student at the London School of
+Economics and Political Science. 1913; 200 pp., Demy 8vo. 7s. 6d. net.
+
+  _G. Bell and Sons._
+
+~34. Emigration from the United Kingdom to North America, 1763-1912.~
+By STANLEY C. JOHNSON, M.A., Cambridge. 1913; xvi and 387 pp., Demy
+8vo, cloth. 6s. net.
+
+  _G. Routledge and Sons._
+
+~35. The Financing of the Hundred Years’ War from 1337 to 1360.~ By
+SCHUYLER B. TERRY. 1914; xvi and 199 pp., Demy 8vo, cloth. 6s. net.
+
+  _Constable and Co._
+
+~36. Social Organisation and Kinship.~ By W. H. R. RIVERS, M.D.,
+F.R.S., Fellow of St. John’s College, Cambridge. 1913; viii and 96 pp.,
+Demy 8vo, cloth. 2s. 6d. net.
+
+  _Constable and Co._
+
+
+_Series of Bibliographies by Students of the School._
+
+~1. A Bibliography of Unemployment and the Unemployed.~ By F. ISABEL
+TAYLOR, B.Sc. (Econ.), London. Preface by SIDNEY WEBB, LL.B. 1909; xix
+and 71 pp., Demy 8vo, cloth, 2s. net; paper, 1s. 6d. net.
+
+  _P. S. King and Son._
+
+~2. Two Select Bibliographies of Mediæval Historical Study.~ By
+MARGARET F. MOORE, M.A.; with Preface and Appendix by HUBERT HALL,
+F.S.A. 1912; pp. 185, Demy 8vo, cloth. 5s. net.
+
+  _Constable and Co._
+
+~3. Bibliography of Roads.~ By DOROTHY BALLEN: An enlarged and revised
+edition of a similar work compiled by Mr. and Mrs. Sidney Webb in 1906.
+With an introduction by Sir George Gibb. 1914; xviii. and 281 pp., Demy
+8vo, cloth. 15s. net.
+
+  _P. S. King and Son._
+
+~4. A Select Bibliography for the Study, Sources, and Literature of
+English Mediæval Economic History.~ Edited by HUBERT HALL, F.S.A. 1913;
+xiii and 350 pp., Demy 8vo, cloth. 6s. net.
+
+  _P. S. King and Son._
+
+
+_Series of Geographical Studies._
+
+~1. The Reigate Sheet of the One-inch Ordnance Survey.~ A Study in the
+Geography of the Surrey Hills. By ELLEN SMITH. Introduction by H. J.
+Mackinder, M.A., M.P. 1910; xix and 110 pp., 6 maps, 23 illustrations.
+Crown 8vo, cloth. 5s. net.
+
+  _A. and C. Black._
+
+~2. The Highlands of South-West Surrey.~ A Geographical Study in
+Sand and Clay. By E. C. MATTHEWS. 1911; viii and 124 pp., 7 maps, 8
+illustrations, 8vo, cloth. 5s. net.
+
+  _A. and C. Black._
+
+
+_Series of Contour Maps of Critical Areas._
+
+~1. The Hudson-Mohawk Gap.~ Prepared by the Diagram Company from a map
+by B. B. Dickinson. 1913; 1 sheet 18 in. by 22-1/2 in. Scale 20 miles
+to 1 inch. 6d. net; post free, folded 7d., rolled 9d.
+
+  _Sifton, Praed and Co._
+
+
+
+
+Transcriber's Note
+
+
+The following apparent errors have been corrected:
+
+p. 8 (note) "Rechtswiss" changed to "Rechtswiss."
+
+p. 20 "now becomes" changed to "now become"
+
+Advertisement "contemproary" changed to "contemporary"
+
+Advertisement "was Achieved" changed to "was Achieved."
+
+Advertisement "Commerical and Financial" changed to "Commercial and
+Financial"
+
+
+
+
+
+
+End of Project Gutenberg's Kinship and Social Organisation, by W. H. R. Rivers
+
+*** END OF THIS PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK KINSHIP AND SOCIAL ORGANISATION ***
+
+***** This file should be named 44728-0.txt or 44728-0.zip *****
+This and all associated files of various formats will be found in:
+        http://www.gutenberg.org/4/4/7/2/44728/
+
+Produced by Henry Flower and the Online Distributed
+Proofreading Team at http://www.pgdp.net (This file was
+produced from images generously made available by The
+Internet Archive/Canadian Libraries)
+
+
+Updated editions will replace the previous one--the old editions
+will be renamed.
+
+Creating the works from public domain print editions means that no
+one owns a United States copyright in these works, so the Foundation
+(and you!) can copy and distribute it in the United States without
+permission and without paying copyright royalties.  Special rules,
+set forth in the General Terms of Use part of this license, apply to
+copying and distributing Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works to
+protect the PROJECT GUTENBERG-tm concept and trademark.  Project
+Gutenberg is a registered trademark, and may not be used if you
+charge for the eBooks, unless you receive specific permission.  If you
+do not charge anything for copies of this eBook, complying with the
+rules is very easy.  You may use this eBook for nearly any purpose
+such as creation of derivative works, reports, performances and
+research.  They may be modified and printed and given away--you may do
+practically ANYTHING with public domain eBooks.  Redistribution is
+subject to the trademark license, especially commercial
+redistribution.
+
+
+
+*** START: FULL LICENSE ***
+
+THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG LICENSE
+PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU DISTRIBUTE OR USE THIS WORK
+
+To protect the Project Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting the free
+distribution of electronic works, by using or distributing this work
+(or any other work associated in any way with the phrase "Project
+Gutenberg"), you agree to comply with all the terms of the Full Project
+Gutenberg-tm License (available with this file or online at
+http://gutenberg.org/license).
+
+
+Section 1.  General Terms of Use and Redistributing Project Gutenberg-tm
+electronic works
+
+1.A.  By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg-tm
+electronic work, you indicate that you have read, understand, agree to
+and accept all the terms of this license and intellectual property
+(trademark/copyright) agreement.  If you do not agree to abide by all
+the terms of this agreement, you must cease using and return or destroy
+all copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in your possession.
+If you paid a fee for obtaining a copy of or access to a Project
+Gutenberg-tm electronic work and you do not agree to be bound by the
+terms of this agreement, you may obtain a refund from the person or
+entity to whom you paid the fee as set forth in paragraph 1.E.8.
+
+1.B.  "Project Gutenberg" is a registered trademark.  It may only be
+used on or associated in any way with an electronic work by people who
+agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement.  There are a few
+things that you can do with most Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works
+even without complying with the full terms of this agreement.  See
+paragraph 1.C below.  There are a lot of things you can do with Project
+Gutenberg-tm electronic works if you follow the terms of this agreement
+and help preserve free future access to Project Gutenberg-tm electronic
+works.  See paragraph 1.E below.
+
+1.C.  The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation ("the Foundation"
+or PGLAF), owns a compilation copyright in the collection of Project
+Gutenberg-tm electronic works.  Nearly all the individual works in the
+collection are in the public domain in the United States.  If an
+individual work is in the public domain in the United States and you are
+located in the United States, we do not claim a right to prevent you from
+copying, distributing, performing, displaying or creating derivative
+works based on the work as long as all references to Project Gutenberg
+are removed.  Of course, we hope that you will support the Project
+Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting free access to electronic works by
+freely sharing Project Gutenberg-tm works in compliance with the terms of
+this agreement for keeping the Project Gutenberg-tm name associated with
+the work.  You can easily comply with the terms of this agreement by
+keeping this work in the same format with its attached full Project
+Gutenberg-tm License when you share it without charge with others.
+
+1.D.  The copyright laws of the place where you are located also govern
+what you can do with this work.  Copyright laws in most countries are in
+a constant state of change.  If you are outside the United States, check
+the laws of your country in addition to the terms of this agreement
+before downloading, copying, displaying, performing, distributing or
+creating derivative works based on this work or any other Project
+Gutenberg-tm work.  The Foundation makes no representations concerning
+the copyright status of any work in any country outside the United
+States.
+
+1.E.  Unless you have removed all references to Project Gutenberg:
+
+1.E.1.  The following sentence, with active links to, or other immediate
+access to, the full Project Gutenberg-tm License must appear prominently
+whenever any copy of a Project Gutenberg-tm work (any work on which the
+phrase "Project Gutenberg" appears, or with which the phrase "Project
+Gutenberg" is associated) is accessed, displayed, performed, viewed,
+copied or distributed:
+
+This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere at no cost and with
+almost no restrictions whatsoever.  You may copy it, give it away or
+re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included
+with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org/license
+
+1.E.2.  If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is derived
+from the public domain (does not contain a notice indicating that it is
+posted with permission of the copyright holder), the work can be copied
+and distributed to anyone in the United States without paying any fees
+or charges.  If you are redistributing or providing access to a work
+with the phrase "Project Gutenberg" associated with or appearing on the
+work, you must comply either with the requirements of paragraphs 1.E.1
+through 1.E.7 or obtain permission for the use of the work and the
+Project Gutenberg-tm trademark as set forth in paragraphs 1.E.8 or
+1.E.9.
+
+1.E.3.  If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is posted
+with the permission of the copyright holder, your use and distribution
+must comply with both paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 and any additional
+terms imposed by the copyright holder.  Additional terms will be linked
+to the Project Gutenberg-tm License for all works posted with the
+permission of the copyright holder found at the beginning of this work.
+
+1.E.4.  Do not unlink or detach or remove the full Project Gutenberg-tm
+License terms from this work, or any files containing a part of this
+work or any other work associated with Project Gutenberg-tm.
+
+1.E.5.  Do not copy, display, perform, distribute or redistribute this
+electronic work, or any part of this electronic work, without
+prominently displaying the sentence set forth in paragraph 1.E.1 with
+active links or immediate access to the full terms of the Project
+Gutenberg-tm License.
+
+1.E.6.  You may convert to and distribute this work in any binary,
+compressed, marked up, nonproprietary or proprietary form, including any
+word processing or hypertext form.  However, if you provide access to or
+distribute copies of a Project Gutenberg-tm work in a format other than
+"Plain Vanilla ASCII" or other format used in the official version
+posted on the official Project Gutenberg-tm web site (www.gutenberg.org),
+you must, at no additional cost, fee or expense to the user, provide a
+copy, a means of exporting a copy, or a means of obtaining a copy upon
+request, of the work in its original "Plain Vanilla ASCII" or other
+form.  Any alternate format must include the full Project Gutenberg-tm
+License as specified in paragraph 1.E.1.
+
+1.E.7.  Do not charge a fee for access to, viewing, displaying,
+performing, copying or distributing any Project Gutenberg-tm works
+unless you comply with paragraph 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.
+
+1.E.8.  You may charge a reasonable fee for copies of or providing
+access to or distributing Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works provided
+that
+
+- You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you derive from
+     the use of Project Gutenberg-tm works calculated using the method
+     you already use to calculate your applicable taxes.  The fee is
+     owed to the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm trademark, but he
+     has agreed to donate royalties under this paragraph to the
+     Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation.  Royalty payments
+     must be paid within 60 days following each date on which you
+     prepare (or are legally required to prepare) your periodic tax
+     returns.  Royalty payments should be clearly marked as such and
+     sent to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation at the
+     address specified in Section 4, "Information about donations to
+     the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation."
+
+- You provide a full refund of any money paid by a user who notifies
+     you in writing (or by e-mail) within 30 days of receipt that s/he
+     does not agree to the terms of the full Project Gutenberg-tm
+     License.  You must require such a user to return or
+     destroy all copies of the works possessed in a physical medium
+     and discontinue all use of and all access to other copies of
+     Project Gutenberg-tm works.
+
+- You provide, in accordance with paragraph 1.F.3, a full refund of any
+     money paid for a work or a replacement copy, if a defect in the
+     electronic work is discovered and reported to you within 90 days
+     of receipt of the work.
+
+- You comply with all other terms of this agreement for free
+     distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm works.
+
+1.E.9.  If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a Project Gutenberg-tm
+electronic work or group of works on different terms than are set
+forth in this agreement, you must obtain permission in writing from
+both the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation and Michael
+Hart, the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm trademark.  Contact the
+Foundation as set forth in Section 3 below.
+
+1.F.
+
+1.F.1.  Project Gutenberg volunteers and employees expend considerable
+effort to identify, do copyright research on, transcribe and proofread
+public domain works in creating the Project Gutenberg-tm
+collection.  Despite these efforts, Project Gutenberg-tm electronic
+works, and the medium on which they may be stored, may contain
+"Defects," such as, but not limited to, incomplete, inaccurate or
+corrupt data, transcription errors, a copyright or other intellectual
+property infringement, a defective or damaged disk or other medium, a
+computer virus, or computer codes that damage or cannot be read by
+your equipment.
+
+1.F.2.  LIMITED WARRANTY, DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES - Except for the "Right
+of Replacement or Refund" described in paragraph 1.F.3, the Project
+Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the owner of the Project
+Gutenberg-tm trademark, and any other party distributing a Project
+Gutenberg-tm electronic work under this agreement, disclaim all
+liability to you for damages, costs and expenses, including legal
+fees.  YOU AGREE THAT YOU HAVE NO REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE, STRICT
+LIABILITY, BREACH OF WARRANTY OR BREACH OF CONTRACT EXCEPT THOSE
+PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH 1.F.3.  YOU AGREE THAT THE FOUNDATION, THE
+TRADEMARK OWNER, AND ANY DISTRIBUTOR UNDER THIS AGREEMENT WILL NOT BE
+LIABLE TO YOU FOR ACTUAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE OR
+INCIDENTAL DAMAGES EVEN IF YOU GIVE NOTICE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH
+DAMAGE.
+
+1.F.3.  LIMITED RIGHT OF REPLACEMENT OR REFUND - If you discover a
+defect in this electronic work within 90 days of receiving it, you can
+receive a refund of the money (if any) you paid for it by sending a
+written explanation to the person you received the work from.  If you
+received the work on a physical medium, you must return the medium with
+your written explanation.  The person or entity that provided you with
+the defective work may elect to provide a replacement copy in lieu of a
+refund.  If you received the work electronically, the person or entity
+providing it to you may choose to give you a second opportunity to
+receive the work electronically in lieu of a refund.  If the second copy
+is also defective, you may demand a refund in writing without further
+opportunities to fix the problem.
+
+1.F.4.  Except for the limited right of replacement or refund set forth
+in paragraph 1.F.3, this work is provided to you 'AS-IS' WITH NO OTHER
+WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO
+WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PURPOSE.
+
+1.F.5.  Some states do not allow disclaimers of certain implied
+warranties or the exclusion or limitation of certain types of damages.
+If any disclaimer or limitation set forth in this agreement violates the
+law of the state applicable to this agreement, the agreement shall be
+interpreted to make the maximum disclaimer or limitation permitted by
+the applicable state law.  The invalidity or unenforceability of any
+provision of this agreement shall not void the remaining provisions.
+
+1.F.6.  INDEMNITY - You agree to indemnify and hold the Foundation, the
+trademark owner, any agent or employee of the Foundation, anyone
+providing copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in accordance
+with this agreement, and any volunteers associated with the production,
+promotion and distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works,
+harmless from all liability, costs and expenses, including legal fees,
+that arise directly or indirectly from any of the following which you do
+or cause to occur: (a) distribution of this or any Project Gutenberg-tm
+work, (b) alteration, modification, or additions or deletions to any
+Project Gutenberg-tm work, and (c) any Defect you cause.
+
+
+Section  2.  Information about the Mission of Project Gutenberg-tm
+
+Project Gutenberg-tm is synonymous with the free distribution of
+electronic works in formats readable by the widest variety of computers
+including obsolete, old, middle-aged and new computers.  It exists
+because of the efforts of hundreds of volunteers and donations from
+people in all walks of life.
+
+Volunteers and financial support to provide volunteers with the
+assistance they need, are critical to reaching Project Gutenberg-tm's
+goals and ensuring that the Project Gutenberg-tm collection will
+remain freely available for generations to come.  In 2001, the Project
+Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation was created to provide a secure
+and permanent future for Project Gutenberg-tm and future generations.
+To learn more about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation
+and how your efforts and donations can help, see Sections 3 and 4
+and the Foundation web page at http://www.pglaf.org.
+
+
+Section 3.  Information about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive
+Foundation
+
+The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation is a non profit
+501(c)(3) educational corporation organized under the laws of the
+state of Mississippi and granted tax exempt status by the Internal
+Revenue Service.  The Foundation's EIN or federal tax identification
+number is 64-6221541.  Its 501(c)(3) letter is posted at
+http://pglaf.org/fundraising.  Contributions to the Project Gutenberg
+Literary Archive Foundation are tax deductible to the full extent
+permitted by U.S. federal laws and your state's laws.
+
+The Foundation's principal office is located at 4557 Melan Dr. S.
+Fairbanks, AK, 99712., but its volunteers and employees are scattered
+throughout numerous locations.  Its business office is located at
+809 North 1500 West, Salt Lake City, UT 84116, (801) 596-1887, email
+business@pglaf.org.  Email contact links and up to date contact
+information can be found at the Foundation's web site and official
+page at http://pglaf.org
+
+For additional contact information:
+     Dr. Gregory B. Newby
+     Chief Executive and Director
+     gbnewby@pglaf.org
+
+
+Section 4.  Information about Donations to the Project Gutenberg
+Literary Archive Foundation
+
+Project Gutenberg-tm depends upon and cannot survive without wide
+spread public support and donations to carry out its mission of
+increasing the number of public domain and licensed works that can be
+freely distributed in machine readable form accessible by the widest
+array of equipment including outdated equipment.  Many small donations
+($1 to $5,000) are particularly important to maintaining tax exempt
+status with the IRS.
+
+The Foundation is committed to complying with the laws regulating
+charities and charitable donations in all 50 states of the United
+States.  Compliance requirements are not uniform and it takes a
+considerable effort, much paperwork and many fees to meet and keep up
+with these requirements.  We do not solicit donations in locations
+where we have not received written confirmation of compliance.  To
+SEND DONATIONS or determine the status of compliance for any
+particular state visit http://pglaf.org
+
+While we cannot and do not solicit contributions from states where we
+have not met the solicitation requirements, we know of no prohibition
+against accepting unsolicited donations from donors in such states who
+approach us with offers to donate.
+
+International donations are gratefully accepted, but we cannot make
+any statements concerning tax treatment of donations received from
+outside the United States.  U.S. laws alone swamp our small staff.
+
+Please check the Project Gutenberg Web pages for current donation
+methods and addresses.  Donations are accepted in a number of other
+ways including checks, online payments and credit card donations.
+To donate, please visit: http://pglaf.org/donate
+
+
+Section 5.  General Information About Project Gutenberg-tm electronic
+works.
+
+Professor Michael S. Hart is the originator of the Project Gutenberg-tm
+concept of a library of electronic works that could be freely shared
+with anyone.  For thirty years, he produced and distributed Project
+Gutenberg-tm eBooks with only a loose network of volunteer support.
+
+
+Project Gutenberg-tm eBooks are often created from several printed
+editions, all of which are confirmed as Public Domain in the U.S.
+unless a copyright notice is included.  Thus, we do not necessarily
+keep eBooks in compliance with any particular paper edition.
+
+
+Most people start at our Web site which has the main PG search facility:
+
+     http://www.gutenberg.org
+
+This Web site includes information about Project Gutenberg-tm,
+including how to make donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary
+Archive Foundation, how to help produce our new eBooks, and how to
+subscribe to our email newsletter to hear about new eBooks.
diff --git a/old/44728-0.zip b/old/44728-0.zip
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..945d2d1
--- /dev/null
+++ b/old/44728-0.zip
diff --git a/old/44728-8.txt b/old/44728-8.txt
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..3d89e41
--- /dev/null
+++ b/old/44728-8.txt
@@ -0,0 +1,3445 @@
+Project Gutenberg's Kinship and Social Organisation, by W. H. R. Rivers
+
+This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere at no cost and with
+almost no restrictions whatsoever.  You may copy it, give it away or
+re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included
+with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org/license
+
+
+Title: Kinship and Social Organisation
+
+Author: W. H. R. Rivers
+
+Release Date: January 22, 2014 [EBook #44728]
+
+Language: English
+
+Character set encoding: ISO-8859-1
+
+*** START OF THIS PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK KINSHIP AND SOCIAL ORGANISATION ***
+
+
+
+
+Produced by Henry Flower and the Online Distributed
+Proofreading Team at http://www.pgdp.net (This file was
+produced from images generously made available by The
+Internet Archive/Canadian Libraries)
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+  STUDIES IN ECONOMIC AND POLITICAL SCIENCE
+
+  Edited by the HON. W. PEMBER REEVES
+
+  _Director of the London School of Economics and Political Science_
+
+  No. 36 in the Series of Monographs by Writers connected
+  with the London School of Economics and Political Science.
+
+
+  KINSHIP AND SOCIAL ORGANISATION
+
+
+
+
+  Kinship and
+
+  Social Organisation
+
+
+  By
+
+  W. H. R. RIVERS, M.D., F.R.S.,
+
+  Fellow of St. John's College, Cambridge
+
+
+  LONDON
+  CONSTABLE & CO LTD
+  1914
+
+
+
+
+CONTENTS
+
+
+                 PAGE
+
+  PREFACE        vii.
+
+  LECTURE I         1
+
+  LECTURE II       28
+
+  LECTURE III      60
+
+  INDEX            95
+
+
+
+
+PREFACE.
+
+
+These lectures were delivered at the London School of Economics in May
+of the present year. They are largely based on experience gained in the
+work of the Percy Sladen Trust Expedition to Melanesia of 1908, and
+give a simplified record of social conditions which will be described
+in detail in the full account of the work of that expedition.
+
+A few small additions and modifications have been made since the
+lectures were given, some of these being due to suggestions made by
+Professor Westermarck and Dr. Malinowski in the discussions which
+followed the lectures. I am also indebted to Miss B. Freire-Marreco
+for allowing me to refer to unpublished material collected during her
+recent work among the Pueblo Indians of North America.
+
+  W. H. R. RIVERS.
+
+  St. John's College,
+  Cambridge.
+  _November 19th, 1913._
+
+
+
+
+KINSHIP AND SOCIAL
+
+ORGANISATION
+
+
+
+
+LECTURE I
+
+
+The aim of these lectures is to demonstrate the close connection which
+exists between methods of denoting relationship or kinship and forms
+of social organisation, including those based on different varieties
+of the institution of marriage. In other words, my aim will be to show
+that the terminology of relationship has been rigorously determined
+by social conditions and that, if this position has been established
+and accepted, systems of relationship furnish us with a most valuable
+instrument in studying the history of social institutions.
+
+In the controversy of the present and of recent times, it is the
+special mode of denoting relationship known as the classificatory
+system which has formed the chief subject of discussion. It is in
+connection with this system that there have arisen the various vexed
+questions which have so excited the interest--I might almost say the
+passions--of sociologists during the last quarter of a century.
+
+I am afraid it would be dangerous to assume your familiarity with this
+system, and I must therefore begin with a brief description of its
+main characters. The essential feature of the classificatory system,
+that to which it owes its name, is the application of its terms, not
+to single individual persons, but to classes of relatives which may
+often be very large. Objections have been made to the use of the term
+"classificatory" on the ground that our own terms of relationship also
+apply to classes of persons; the term "brother," for instance, to all
+the male children of the same father and mother, the term "uncle" to
+all the brothers of the father and mother as well as to the husband
+of an aunt, while the term "cousin" may denote a still larger class.
+It is, of course, true that many of our own terms of relationship
+apply to classes of persons, but in the systems to which the word
+"classificatory" is usually applied, the classificatory principle
+applies far more widely, and in some cases even, more logically and
+consistently. In the most complete form of the classificatory system
+there is not one single term of relationship the use of which tells
+us that reference is being made to one person and to one person only,
+whereas in our own system there are six such terms, viz., husband,
+wife, father, mother, father-in-law and mother-in-law. In those systems
+in which the classificatory principle is carried to its extreme degree
+every term is applied to a class of persons. The term "father," for
+instance, is applied to all those whom the father would call brother,
+and to all the husbands of those whom the mother calls sister,
+both brother and sister being used in a far wider sense than among
+ourselves. In some forms of the classificatory system the term "father"
+is also used for all those whom the mother would call brother, and for
+all the husbands of those whom the father would call sister, and in
+other systems the application of the term may be still more extensive.
+Similarly, the term used for the wife may be applied to all those whom
+the wife would call sister and to the wives of all those whom the
+speaker calls brother, brother and sister again being used in a far
+wider sense than in our own language.
+
+The classificatory system has many other features which mark it off
+more or less sharply from our own mode of denoting relationship, but I
+do not think it would be profitable to attempt a full description at
+this stage of our enquiry. As I have said, the object of these lectures
+is to show how the various features of the classificatory system have
+arisen out of, and can therefore be explained historically by, social
+facts. If you are not already acquainted with these features, you will
+learn to know them the more easily if at the same time you learn how
+they have come into existence.
+
+I will begin with a brief history of the subject. So long as it was
+supposed that all the peoples of the world denoted relationship in the
+same way, namely, that which is customary among ourselves, there was
+no problem. There was no reason why the subject should have awakened
+any interest, and so far as I have been able to find, it is only since
+the discovery of the classificatory system of relationship that the
+problem now before us was ever raised. I imagine that, if students ever
+thought about the matter at all, it must have seemed obvious that the
+way in which they and the other known peoples of the world used terms
+of relationship was conditioned and determined by the social relations
+which the terms denoted.
+
+The state of affairs became very different as soon as it was known that
+many peoples of the world use terms of relationship in a manner, and
+according to rules, so widely different from our own that they seem to
+belong to an altogether different order, a difference well illustrated
+by the confusion which is apt to arise when we use English words in
+the translation of classificatory terms or classificatory terms as the
+equivalents of our own. The difficulty or impossibility of conforming
+to complete truth and reality, when we attempt this task, is the best
+witness to the fundamental difference between the two modes of denoting
+relationship.
+
+I do not know of any discovery in the whole range of science which
+can be more certainly put to the credit of one man than that of the
+classificatory system of relationship by Lewis Morgan. By this I mean,
+not merely that he was the first to point out clearly the existence of
+this mode of denoting relationship, but that it was he who collected
+the vast mass of material by which the essential characters of the
+system were demonstrated, and it was he who was the first to recognise
+the great theoretical importance of his new discovery. It is the denial
+of this importance by his contemporaries and successors which furnishes
+the best proof of the credit which is due to him for the discovery.
+The very extent of the material he collected[1] has probably done much
+to obstruct the recognition of the importance of his work. It is a
+somewhat discouraging thought that, if Morgan had been less industrious
+and had amassed a smaller collection of material which could have been
+embodied in a more available form, the value of his work would probably
+have been far more widely recognised than it is to-day. The volume
+of his material is, however, only a subsidiary factor in the process
+which has led to the neglect or rejection of the importance of Morgan's
+discovery. The chief cause of the neglect is one for which Morgan must
+himself largely bear the blame. He was not content to demonstrate, as
+he might to some extent have done from his own material, the close
+connection between the terminology of the classificatory system of
+relationship and forms of social organisation. There can be little
+doubt that he recognised this connection, but he was not content to
+demonstrate the dependence of the terminology of relationship upon
+social forms the existence of which was already known, or which were
+capable of demonstration with the material at his disposal. He passed
+over all these early stages of the argument, and proceeded directly to
+refer the origin of the terminology to forms of social organisation
+which were not known to exist anywhere on the earth and of which there
+was no direct evidence in the past. When, further, the social condition
+which Morgan was led to formulate was one of general promiscuity
+developing into group-marriage, conditions bitterly repugnant to the
+sentiments of most civilised persons, it is not surprising that he
+aroused a mass of heated opposition which led, not merely to widespread
+rejection of his views, but also to the neglect of lessons to be learnt
+from his new discovery which must have received general recognition
+long before this, if they had not been obscured by other issues.
+
+[1] _Systems of Consanguinity and Affinity of the Human Family:
+Smithsonian Contributions to Knowledge_, vol. xvii.; Washington, 1871.
+
+The first to take up the cudgels in opposition to Morgan was our own
+pioneer in the study of the early forms of human society, John Ferguson
+McLennan.[2] He criticised the views of Morgan severely and often
+justly, and then pointing out, as was then believed to be the case,
+that no duties or rights were connected with the relationships of the
+classificatory system, he concluded that the terms formed merely a
+code of courtesies and ceremonial addresses for social intercourse.
+Those who have followed him have usually been content to repeat the
+conclusion that the classificatory system is nothing more than a
+body of mutual salutations and terms of address. They have failed to
+see that it still remains necessary to explain how the terms of the
+classificatory system came to be used in mutual salutation. They have
+failed to recognise that they were either rejecting the principle of
+determinism in sociology, or were only putting back to a conveniently
+remote distance the consideration of the problem how and why the
+classificatory terms came to be used in the way now customary among so
+many peoples of the earth.
+
+[2] _Studies in Ancient History_, 1st series, 1876, p. 331.
+
+This aspect of the problem, which has been neglected or put on one
+side by the followers of McLennan, was not so treated by McLennan
+himself. As we should expect from the general character of his work,
+McLennan clearly recognised that the classificatory system must have
+been determined by social conditions, and he tried to show how it might
+have arisen as the result of the change from the Nair to the Tibetan
+form of polyandry.[3] He even went so far as to formulate varieties
+of this process by means of which there might have been produced the
+chief varieties of the classificatory system, the existence of which
+had been demonstrated by Morgan. It is quite clear that McLennan had no
+doubts about the necessity of tracing back the social institution of
+the classificatory system of relationship to social causes, a necessity
+which has been ignored or even explicitly denied by those who have
+followed him in rejecting the views of Morgan. It is one of the many
+unfortunate consequences of McLennan's belief in the importance of
+polyandry in the history of human society that it has helped to prevent
+his followers from seeing the social importance of the classificatory
+system. They have failed to see that the classificatory system may be
+the result neither of promiscuity nor of polyandry, and yet have been
+determined, both in its general character and in its details, by forms
+of social organisation.
+
+[3] _Op. cit._, p. 373.
+
+Since the time of Morgan and McLennan few have attempted to deal with
+the question in any comprehensive manner. The problem has inevitably
+been involved in the controversy which has raged between the advocates
+of the original promiscuity or the primitive monogamy of mankind,
+but most of the former have been ready to accept Morgan's views
+blindly, while the latter have been content to try to explain away
+the importance of conclusions derived from the classificatory system
+without attempting any real study of the evidence. On the side of
+Morgan there has been one exception in the person of Professor J.
+Kohler,[4] who has recognised the lines on which the problem must be
+studied, while on the other side there has been, so far as I am aware,
+only one writer who has recognised that the evidence from the nature
+of the classificatory system of relationship cannot be ignored or
+belittled, but must be faced and some explanation alternative to that
+of Morgan provided.
+
+[4] _Zur Urgeschichte der Ehe_, Stuttgart, 1897 (reprinted from
+_Zeitsch. f. vergleich. Rechtswiss._, 1897, xii., 187).
+
+This attempt was made four years ago by Professor Kroeber,[5] of the
+University of California. The line he takes is absolutely to reject
+the view common to both Morgan and McLennan that the nature of the
+classificatory system has been determined by social conditions.
+He explicitly rejects the view that the mode of using terms of
+relationship depends on social causes, and puts forward as the
+alternative that they are conditioned by causes purely linguistic and
+psychological.
+
+[5] _Journ. Roy. Anth. Inst._, 1909, xxxix, 77.
+
+It is not quite easy to understand what is meant by the linguistic
+causation of terms of relationship. In the summary at the end of
+his paper Kroeber concludes that "they (terms of relationship) are
+determined primarily by language." Terms of relationship, however, are
+elements of language, so that Kroeber's proposition is that elements
+of language are determined primarily by language. In so far as this
+proposition has any meaning, it must be that, in the process of seeking
+the origin of linguistic phenomena, it is our business to ignore any
+but linguistic facts. It would follow that the student of the subject
+should seek the antecedents of linguistic phenomena in other linguistic
+phenomena, and put on one side as not germane to his task all reference
+to the objects and relations which the words denote and connote.
+
+Professor Kroeber's alternative proposition is that terms of
+relationship reflect psychology, not sociology, or, in other words,
+that the way in which terms of relationship are used depends on a
+chain of causation in which psychological processes are the direct
+antecedents of this use. I will try to make his meaning clear by means
+of an instance which he himself gives. He says that at the present time
+there is a tendency among ourselves to speak of the brother-in-law as
+a brother; in other words, we tend to class the brother-in-law and the
+brother together in the nomenclature of our own system of relationship.
+He supposes that we do this because there is a psychological similarity
+between the two relationships which leads us to class them together in
+our customary nomenclature. I shall return both to this and other of
+his examples later.
+
+We have now seen that the opponents of Morgan have taken up two main
+positions which it is possible to attack: one, that the classificatory
+system is nothing more than a body of terms of address; the other,
+that it and other modes of denoting relationship are determined by
+psychological and not by sociological causes. I propose to consider
+these two positions in turn.
+
+Morgan himself was evidently deeply impressed by the function of the
+classificatory system of relationship as a body of salutations. His
+own experience was derived from the North American Indians, and he
+notes the exclusive use of terms of relationship in address, a usage
+so habitual that an omission to recognise a relative in this manner
+would amount almost to an affront. Morgan also points out, as one
+motive for the custom, the presence of a reluctance to utter personal
+names. McLennan had to rely entirely on the evidence collected by
+Morgan, and there can be no doubt that he was greatly influenced by
+the stress Morgan himself laid on the function of the classificatory
+terms as mutual salutations. That in rude societies certain relatives
+have social functions definitely assigned to them by custom was
+known in Morgan's time, and I think it might even then have been
+discovered that the relationships which carried these functions were
+of the classificatory kind. It is, however, only by more recent work,
+beginning with that of Howitt, of Spencer and Gillen, and of Roth
+in Australia, and of the Cambridge Expedition to Torres Straits,
+that the great importance of the functions of relatives through
+the classificatory system has been forced upon the attention of
+sociologists. The social and ceremonial proceedings of the Australian
+aborigines abound in features in which special functions are performed
+by such relatives as the elder brother or the brother of the mother,
+while in Torres Straits I was able to record large groups of duties,
+privileges and restrictions associated with different classificatory
+relationships.
+
+Further work has shown that widely, though not universally, the
+nomenclature of the classificatory system carries with it a number of
+clearly defined social practices. One who applies a given term of
+relationship to another person has to behave towards that person in
+certain definite ways. He has to perform certain duties towards him,
+and enjoys certain privileges, and is subject to certain restrictions
+in his conduct in relation to him. These duties, privileges and
+restrictions vary greatly in number among different peoples, but
+wherever they exist, I know of no exception to their importance and
+to the regard in which they are held by all members of the community.
+You doubtless know of many examples of such functions associated with
+relationship, and I need give only one example.
+
+In the Banks Islands the term used between two brothers-in-law is
+_wulus_, _walus_, or _walui_, and a man who applies one of these terms
+to another may not utter his name, nor may the two behave familiarly
+towards one another in any way. In one island, Merlav, these relatives
+have all their possessions in common, and it is the duty of one to
+help the other in any difficulty, to warn him in danger, and, if need
+be, to die with him. If one dies, the other has to help to support
+his widow and has to abstain from certain foods. Further, there are
+a number of curious regulations in which the sanctity of the head
+plays a great part. A man must take nothing from above the head of his
+brother-in-law, nor may he even eat a bird which has flown over his
+head. A person has only to say of an object "That is the head of your
+brother-in-law," and the person addressed will have to desist from the
+use of the object. If the object is edible, it may not be eaten; if it
+is one which is being manufactured, such as a mat, the person addressed
+will have to cease from his work if the object be thus called the head
+of his brother-in-law. He will only be allowed to finish it on making
+compensation, not to the person who has prevented the work by reference
+to the head, but to the brother-in-law whose head had been mentioned.
+Ludicrous as some of these customs may seem to us, they are very far
+from being so to those who practise them. They show clearly the very
+important part taken in the lives of those who use the classificatory
+system by the social functions associated with relationship. As I
+have said, these functions are not universally associated with the
+classificatory system, but they are very general in many parts of the
+world and only need more careful investigation to be found even more
+general and more important than appears at present.
+
+Let us now look at our own system of relationship from this point
+of view. Two striking features present themselves. First, the great
+paucity of definite social functions associated with relationship,
+and secondly, the almost complete limitation of such functions to
+those relationships which apply only to individual persons and not
+to classes of persons. Of such relationships as cousin, uncle, aunt,
+father-in-law, or mother-in-law there may be said to be no definite
+social functions. A school-boy believes it is the duty of his uncle
+to tip him, but this is about as near as one can get to any social
+obligation on the part of this relative.
+
+The same will be found to hold good to a large extent if we turn to
+those social regulations which have been embodied in our laws. It is
+only in the case of the transmission of hereditary rank and of the
+property of a person dying intestate that more distant relatives are
+brought into any legal relationship with one another, and then only
+if there is an absence of nearer relatives. It is only when forced to
+do so by exceptional circumstances that the law recognises any of the
+persons to whom the more classificatory of our terms of relationship
+apply. If we pay regard to the social functions associated with
+relationship, it is our own system, rather than the classificatory,
+which is open to the reproach that its relationships carry into them no
+rights and duties.
+
+In the course of the recent work of the Percy Sladen Trust Expedition
+in Melanesia and Polynesia I have been able to collect a body of facts
+which bring out, even more clearly than has hitherto been recognised,
+the dependence of classificatory terms on social rights.[6] The
+classificatory systems of Oceania vary greatly in character. In some
+places relationships are definitely distinguished in nomenclature
+which are classed with other relationships elsewhere. Thus, while
+most Melanesian and some Polynesian systems have a definite term for
+the mother's brother and for the class of relatives whom the mother
+calls brother, in other systems this relative is classed with, and
+is denoted by, the same term as the father. The point to which I now
+call your attention is that there is a very close correlation between
+the presence of a special term for this relative and the presence of
+special functions attached to the relationship.
+
+[6] The full account of these and other facts cited in these lectures
+will appear shortly in a work on _The History of Melanesian Society_,
+to be published by the Cambridge University Press.
+
+In Polynesia, both the Hawaiians and the inhabitants of Niue class the
+mother's brother with the father, and in neither place was I able to
+discover that there were any special duties, privileges or restrictions
+ascribed to the mother's brother. In the Polynesian islands of Tonga
+and Tikopia, on the other hand, where there are special terms for
+the mother's brother, this relative has also special functions. The
+only place in Melanesia where I failed to find a special term for the
+mother's brother was in the western Solomon Islands, and that was
+also the only part of Melanesia where I failed to find any trace of
+special social functions ascribed to this relative. I do not know of
+such functions in Santa Cruz, but my information about the system of
+that island is derived from others, and further research will almost
+certainly show that they are present.
+
+In my own experience, then, among two different peoples, I have been
+able to establish a definite correlation between the presence of
+a term of relationship and special functions associated with the
+relationship. Information kindly given to me by Father Egidi, however,
+seems to show that the correlation among the Melanesians is not
+complete. In Mekeo, the mother's brother has the duty of putting on the
+first perineal garment of his nephew, but he has no special term and is
+classed with the father. Among the Kuni, on the other hand, there is
+a definite term for the mother's brother distinguishing him from the
+father, but yet he has not, so far as Father Egidi knows, any special
+functions.
+
+Both in Melanesia and Polynesia a similar correlation comes out in
+connection with other relationships, the most prominent exception
+being the absence of a special term for the father's sister in the
+Banks Islands, although this relative has very definite and important
+functions. In these islands the father's sister is classed with the
+mother as _vev_ or _veve_, but even here, where the generalisation
+seems to break down, it does not do so completely, for the father's
+sister is distinguished from the mother as _veve vus rawe_, the mother
+who kills a pig, as opposed to the simple _veve_ used for the mother
+and her sisters.
+
+There is thus definite evidence, not only for the association of
+classificatory terms of relationship with special social functions, but
+from one part of the world we now have evidence which shows that the
+presence or absence of special terms is largely dependent on whether
+there are or are not such functions. We may take it as established that
+the terms of the classificatory system are not, as McLennan supposed,
+merely terms of address and modes of mutual salutation. McLennan came
+to this conclusion because he believed that the classificatory terms
+were associated with no such functions as those of which we now have
+abundant evidence. He asks, "What duties or rights are affected by the
+relationships comprised in the classificatory system?" and answers
+himself according to the knowledge at his disposal, "Absolutely
+none."[7] This passage makes it clear that, if McLennan had known what
+we know to-day, he would never have taken up the line of attack upon
+Morgan's position in which he has had, and still has, so many followers.
+
+[7] _Op. cit._, p. 366.
+
+       *       *       *       *       *
+
+I can now turn to the second line of attack, that which boldly discards
+the origin of the terminology of relationship in social conditions, and
+seeks for its explanation in psychology. The line of argument I propose
+to follow is first to show that many details of classificatory systems
+have been directly determined by social factors. If that task can be
+accomplished, we shall have firm ground from which to take off in the
+attempt to refer the general characters of the classificatory and other
+systems of relationship to forms of social organisation. Any complete
+theory of a social institution has not only to account for its general
+characters, but also for its details, and I propose to begin with the
+details.
+
+I must first return to the history of the subject, and stay for a
+moment to ask why the line of argument I propose to follow was not
+adopted by Morgan and has been so largely disregarded by others.
+
+Whenever a new phenomenon is discovered in any part of the world, there
+is a natural tendency to seek for its parallels elsewhere. Morgan lived
+at a time when the unity of human culture was a topic which greatly
+excited ethnologists, and it is evident that one of his chief interests
+in the new discovery arose from the possibility it seemed to open of
+showing the uniformity of human culture. He hoped to demonstrate the
+uniformity of the classificatory system throughout the world, and he
+was content to observe certain broad varieties of the system and refer
+them to supposed stages in the history of human society. He paid but
+little attention to such varieties of the classificatory system as are
+illustrated in his own record of North American systems, and seems to
+have overlooked entirely certain features of the Indian and Oceanic
+systems he recorded, which might have enabled him to demonstrate the
+close relation between the terminology of relationship and social
+institutions. Morgan's neglect to attend to these differences must
+be ascribed in some measure to the ignorance of rude forms of social
+organisation which existed when he wrote, but the failure of others
+to recognise the dependence of the details of classificatory systems
+upon social institutions is rather to be ascribed to the absence
+of interest in the subject induced by their adherence to McLennan's
+primary error. Those who believe that the classificatory system is
+merely an unimportant code of mutual salutations are not likely to
+attend to relatively minute differences in the customs they despise.
+The credit of having been the first fully to recognise the social
+importance of these differences belongs to J. Kohler. In his book "Zur
+Urgeschichte der Ehe," which I have already mentioned, he studied
+minutely the details of many different systems, and showed that they
+could be explained by certain forms of marriage practised by those who
+use the terms. I propose now to deal with classificatory terminology
+from this point of view. My procedure will be first to show that
+the details which distinguish different forms of the classificatory
+system from one another have been directly determined by the social
+institutions of those who use the systems, and only when this has been
+established, shall I attempt to bring the more general characters
+of the classificatory and other systems into relation with social
+institutions.
+
+I am able to carry out this task more fully than has hitherto been
+possible because I have collected in Melanesia a number of systems of
+relationship which differ far more widely from one another than those
+recorded in Morgan's book or others which have been collected since.
+Some of the features which characterise these Melanesian systems will
+be wholly new to ethnologists, not having yet been recorded elsewhere,
+but I propose to begin with a long familiar mode of terminology which
+accompanies that widely distributed custom known as the cross-cousin
+marriage. In the more frequent form of this marriage a man marries the
+daughter either of his mother's brother or of his father's sister; more
+rarely his choice is limited to one of these relatives.
+
+Such a marriage will have certain definite consequences. Let us take a
+case in which a man marries the daughter of his mother's brother, as is
+represented in the following diagram:
+
+[Illustration: DIAGRAM 1[8]
+
+[8] In this and other diagrams capital letters are used to represent
+men and the smaller letters women.
+
+      +----------------------------+
+      |                            |
+  B = a                            A = b
+    |                                |
+    |                     +----------+----------+
+    |                     |          |          |
+    C =================== d          E          f
+]
+
+One consequence of the marriage between _C_ and _d_ will be that _A_,
+who before the marriage of _C_ was only his mother's brother, now
+becomes also his wife's father, while _b_, who before the marriage was
+the mother's brother's wife of _C_, now becomes his wife's mother.
+Reciprocally, _C_, who before his marriage had been the sister's
+son of _A_ and the husband's sister's son of _b_, now becomes their
+son-in-law. Further, _E_ and _f_, the other children of _A_ and _b_,
+who before the marriage had been only the cousins of _C_, now become
+his wife's brother and sister.
+
+Similarly, _a_, who before the marriage of _d_ was her father's sister,
+now becomes also her husband's mother, and _B_, her father's sister's
+husband, comes to stand in the relation of husband's father; if _C_
+should have any brothers and sisters, these cousins now become her
+brothers- and sisters-in-law.
+
+The combinations of relationship which follow from the marriage of a
+man with the daughter of his mother's brother thus differ for a man and
+a woman, but if, as is usual, a man may marry the daughter either of
+his mother's brother or of his father's sister, these combinations of
+relationship will hold good for both men and women.
+
+Another and more remote consequence of the cross-cousin marriage, if
+this become an established institution, is that the relationships
+of mother's brother and father's sister's husband will come to be
+combined in one and the same person, and that there will be a similar
+combination of the relationships of father's sister and mother's
+brother's wife. If the cross-cousin marriage be the habitual custom,
+_B_ and _b_ in Diagram 1 will be brother and sister; in consequence
+_A_ will be at once the mother's brother and the father's sister's
+husband of _C_, while _b_ will be both his father's sister and his
+mother's brother's wife. Since, however, the mother's brother is also
+the father-in-law, and the father's sister the mother-in-law, three
+different relationships will be combined in each case. Through the
+cross-cousin marriage the relationships of mother's brother, father's
+sister's husband and father-in-law will be combined in one and the same
+person, and the relationships of father's sister, mother's brother's
+wife and mother-in-law will be similarly combined.
+
+In many places where we know the cross-cousin marriage to be an
+established institution, we find just those common designations which I
+have just described. Thus, in the Mbau dialect of Fiji the word _vungo_
+is applied to the mother's brother, the husband of the father's sister
+and the father-in-law. The word _nganei_ is used for the father's
+sister, the mother's brother's wife and the mother-in-law. The term
+_tavale_ is used by a man for the son of the mother's brother or of
+the father's sister as well as for the wife's brother and the sister's
+husband. _Ndavola_ is used not only for the child of the mother's
+brother or father's sister when differing in sex from the speaker, but
+this word is also used by a man for his wife's sister and his brother's
+wife, and by a woman for her husband's brother and her sister's
+husband. Every one of these details of the Mbau system is the direct
+and inevitable consequence of the cross-cousin marriage, if it become
+an established and habitual practice.
+
+This Fijian system does not stand alone in Melanesia. In the southern
+islands of the New Hebrides, in Tanna, Eromanga, Anaiteum and
+Aniwa, the cross-cousin marriage is practised and their systems of
+relationship have features similar to those of Fiji. Thus, in Anaiteum
+the word _matak_ applies to the mother's brother, the father's sister's
+husband and the father-in-law, while the word _engak_ used for the
+cross-cousin is not only used for the wife's sister and the brother's
+wife, but also for the wife herself.
+
+Again, in the island of Guadalcanar in the Solomons the system of
+relationship is just such as would result from the cross-cousin
+marriage. One term, _nia_, is used for the mother's brother and the
+wife's father, and probably also for the father's sister's husband and
+the husband's father, though my stay in the island was not long enough
+to enable me to collect sufficient genealogical material to demonstrate
+these points completely. Similarly, _tarunga_ includes in its
+connotation the father's sister, the mother's brother's wife and the
+wife's mother, and probably also the husband's mother, while the word
+_iva_ is used for both cross-cousins and brothers- and sisters-in-law.
+Corresponding to this terminology there seemed to be no doubt that it
+was the custom for a man to marry the daughter of his mother's brother
+or his father's sister, though I was not able to demonstrate this form
+of marriage genealogically.
+
+These three regions, Fiji, the southern New Hebrides and Guadalcanar,
+are the only parts of Melanesia included in my survey where I found the
+practice of the cross-cousin marriage, and in all three regions the
+systems of relationship are just such as would follow from this form of
+marriage.
+
+Let us now turn to inquire how far it is possible to explain these
+features of Melanesian systems of relationship by psychological
+similarity. If it were not for the cross-cousin marriage, what
+can there be to give the mother's brother a greater psychological
+similarity to the father-in-law than the father's brother, or the
+father's sister a greater similarity to the mother-in-law than the
+mother's sister? Why should it be two special kinds of cousin who are
+classed with two special kinds of brother- and sister-in-law or with
+the husband or wife? Once granted the presence of the cross-cousin
+marriage, and there are psychological similarities certainly, though
+even here the matter is not quite straightforward from the point of
+view of the believer in their importance, for we have to do not merely
+with the similarity of two relatives, but with their identity, with
+the combination of two or more relationships in one and the same
+person. Even if we put this on one side, however, it remains to ask
+how it is possible to say that terms of relationship do not reflect
+sociology, if such psychological similarities are themselves the
+result of the cross-cousin marriage? What point is there in bringing
+in hypothetical psychological similarities which are only at the best
+intermediate links in the chain of causation connecting the terminology
+of relationship with antecedent social conditions?
+
+If you concede the causal relation between the characteristic features
+of a Fijian or Anaiteum or Guadalcanar system and the cross-cousin
+marriage, there can be no question that it is the cross-cousin marriage
+which is the antecedent and the features of the system of relationship
+the consequences. I do not suppose that, even in this subject, there
+will be found anyone to claim that the Fijians took to marrying their
+cross-cousins because such a marriage was suggested to them by the
+nature of their system of relationship. We have to do in this case,
+not merely with one or two features which might be the consequence of
+the cross-cousin marriage, but with a large and complicated meshwork
+of resemblances and differences in the nomenclature of relationship,
+each and every element of which follows directly from such a marriage,
+while no one of the systems I have considered possesses a single
+feature which is not compatible with social conditions arising out of
+this marriage. Apart from quantitative verification, I doubt whether it
+would be possible in the whole range of science to find a case where
+we can be more confident that one phenomenon has been conditioned by
+another. I feel almost guilty of wasting your time by going into it
+so fully, and should hardly have ventured to do so if this case of
+social causation had not been explicitly denied by one with so high a
+reputation as Professor Kroeber. I hope, however, that the argument
+will be useful as an example of the method I shall apply to other cases
+in which the evidence is less conclusive.
+
+The features of terminology which follow from the cross-cousin
+marriage were known to Morgan, being present in three of the systems
+he recorded from Southern India and in the Fijian system collected
+for him by Mr. Fison. The earliest reference[9] to the cross-cousin
+marriage which I have been able to discover is among the Gonds of
+Central India. This marriage was recorded in 1870, which, though
+earlier than the appearance of Morgan's book, was after it had been
+accepted for publication, so that I think we can be confident that
+Morgan was unacquainted with the form of marriage which would have
+explained the peculiar features of the Indian and Fijian systems. It is
+evident, however, that Morgan was so absorbed in his demonstration of
+the similarity of these systems to those of America that he paid but
+little, if any, attention to their peculiarities. He thus lost a great
+opportunity; if he had attended to these peculiarities and had seen
+their meaning, he might have predicted a form of marriage which would
+soon afterwards have been independently discovered. Such an example of
+successful prediction would have forced the social significance of the
+terminology of relationship upon the attention of students in such a
+way that we should have been spared much of the controversy which has
+so long obstructed progress in this branch of sociology. It must at the
+very least have acted as a stimulus to the collection of systems of
+relationship. It would hardly have been possible that now, more than
+forty years after the appearance of Morgan's book, we are still in
+complete ignorance of the terminology of relationship of many peoples
+about whom volumes have been written. It would seem impossible, for
+instance, that our knowledge of Indian systems of relationship could
+have been what it is to-day. India would have been the country in which
+the success of Morgan's prediction would first have shown itself, and
+such an event must have prevented the almost total neglect which the
+subject of relationship has suffered at the hands of students of Indian
+sociology.
+
+[9] Grant, _Gazetteer of Central Provinces_, Nagpur, 2nd ed., 1870, p.
+276.
+
+
+
+
+LECTURE II
+
+
+In my last lecture I began the demonstration of the dependence of the
+classificatory terminology of relationship upon social institutions by
+showing how a number of terms used in several parts of Melanesia have
+been determined by the cross-cousin marriage. I showed that in places
+where the cross-cousin marriage is practised there are not merely one
+or two, but large groups of, terms of relationship which are exactly
+such as would follow from this form of marriage. To-day I begin by
+considering other forms of Melanesian marriage which bring out almost
+as clearly and conclusively the dependence of the classificatory
+terminology upon social conditions.
+
+The systems of relationship of the Banks Islands possess certain very
+remarkable features which were first recorded by Dr. Codrington.[10]
+Put very shortly, it may be stated that cross-cousins stand to one
+another in the relation of parent and child, or, more exactly,
+cross-cousins apply to one another terms of relationship which are
+otherwise used between parents and children. A man applies to his
+mother's brother's children the term which he otherwise uses for
+his own children, and, conversely, a person applies to his father's
+sister's son a term he otherwise uses for his father. Thus, in the
+following diagram, _C_ will apply to _D_ and _e_ the terms which are in
+general use for a son and daughter, while _D_ and _e_ will apply to _C_
+the term they otherwise use for their father.
+
+[10] _The Melanesians_, p. 38.
+
+[Illustration: DIAGRAM 2.
+
+      +----------------------------+
+      |                            |
+  B = a                            A = b
+    |                                |
+    |                     +----------+----------+
+    |                     |                     |
+    C                     D                     e
+]
+
+In most forms of the classificatory system members of different
+generations are denoted in wholly different ways and belong to
+different classes,[11] but here we have a case in which persons of the
+same generation as the speaker are classed with those of an older or a
+younger generation.
+
+[11] I leave out of account here those cases in which members of
+different generations are denoted by a reciprocal term.
+
+I will first ask you to consider to what kind of psychological
+similarity such a practice can be due. What kind of psychological
+similarity can there be between one special kind of cousin and the
+father, and between another special kind of cousin and a son or
+daughter? If the puzzle as put in this form does not seem capable of a
+satisfactory answer, let us turn to see if the Banks Islanders practise
+any social custom to which this peculiar terminology can have been due.
+In the story of Ganviviris told to Dr. Codrington in these islands[12]
+an incident occurs in which a man hands over one of his wives to his
+sister's son, or, in other words, in which a man marries one of the
+wives of his mother's brother. Inquiries showed, not only that this
+form of marriage was once widely current in the islands, but that it
+still persists though in a modified form. The Christianity of the
+natives does not now permit a man to have superfluous wives whom he can
+pass on to his sister's sons, but it is still the orthodox, and indeed
+I was told the popular, custom to marry the widow of the mother's
+brother. It seemed that in the old days a man would take the widow of
+his mother's brother in addition to any wife or wives he might already
+have. Though this is no longer allowed, the leaning towards this form
+of marriage is so strong that after fifty years of external influence
+a young man still marries the widow of his mother's brother, sometimes
+in preference to a girl of his own age. Indeed, there was reason to
+believe that there was an obligation to do so, if the deceased husband
+had a nephew who was not yet married. The peculiar features of the
+terminology of relationship in these islands are exactly such as would
+follow from this form of marriage. If, in Diagram 2, _C_ marries _b_,
+the wife or widow of his mother's brother, and thereby comes to occupy
+the social position of his uncle _A_, the children of the uncle, _D_
+and _e_, will come to stand to him in the relation of children, while
+he, who had previously been the father's sister's son of _D_ and _e_,
+will now become their father. An exceptional form of the classificatory
+system, in which there is a departure from the usual rule limiting a
+term of relationship to members of the same generation, is found to
+be the natural consequence of a social regulation which enjoins the
+marriage of persons belonging to different generations.
+
+[12] _Op. cit._, p. 384.
+
+The next step in the process of demonstrating the social significance
+of the classificatory system of relationship will take us to the
+island of Pentecost in the northern New Hebrides. When I recorded
+the system of this island, I found it to have so bizarre and complex
+a character that I could hardly believe at first it could be other
+than the result of a ludicrous misunderstanding between myself and my
+seemingly intelligent and trustworthy informants. Nevertheless, the
+records obtained from two independent witnesses, and based on separate
+pedigrees, agreed so closely even in the details which seemed most
+improbable that I felt confident that the whole construction could not
+be so mad as it seemed. This confidence was strengthened by finding
+that some of its features were of the same order of peculiarity as
+others which I had already found in a set of Fijian systems I have
+yet to consider. There were certain features which brought relatives
+separated by two generations into one category; the mother's mother,
+for instance, received the same designation as the elder sister; the
+wife's mother the same as the daughter; the wife's brother the same as
+the daughter's son. The only conclusion I was then able to formulate
+was that these features were the result of some social institution
+resembling the matrimonial classes of Australia, which would have the
+effect of putting persons of alternate generations into one social
+category.
+
+This idea was supported by the system of relationship of the Dieri of
+Australia which possesses at least one feature similar to those of
+Pentecost, a fact I happened to remember at the time because Mr. N.
+W. Thomas[13] had used it as the basis of a _reductio ad absurdum_
+argument to show that terms of relationship do not express kinship.
+The interest of the Pentecost system seemed at first to lie in the
+possibility thus opened of bringing Melanesian into relation with
+Australian sociology, a hope which was the more promising in that the
+people of Pentecost and the Dieri resemble one another in the general
+character of their social organisation, each being organised on the
+dual basis with matrilineal descent. When in Pentecost, however, I was
+unable to get further than this, and the details of the system remained
+wholly inexplicable.
+
+[13] _Kinship Organisations and Group Marriage in Australia_,
+Cambridge, 1906, p. 123.
+
+The meaning of some of the peculiarities of the Pentecost system
+became clear when I reached the Banks Islands; they were of the same
+kind as those I have already considered as characteristic of these
+islands. When I had discovered the dependence of these features upon
+the marriage of a man with the wife of his mother's brother, it
+became evident that not only these, but certain other features of
+the Pentecost system, were capable of being accounted for by this
+kind of marriage. The peculiar features of the Pentecost system could
+be divided into two groups, and all the members of one group could
+be accounted for by the marriage with the mother's brother's wife.
+All these features had the character in common that persons of the
+generation immediately above or below that of the speaker were classed
+in nomenclature with relatives of the same generation.
+
+The other group consisted of terms in which persons two generations
+apart were classed with relatives of the same generation. Since the
+first group of correspondences had been explained by a marriage between
+persons one generation apart, it should have been obvious that the
+classing together of persons two generations apart might have been
+the result of marriage between persons two generations apart. The
+idea of a society in which marriages between those having the status
+of grandparents and grandchildren were habitual must have seemed
+so unlikely that, if it entered my mind at all, it must have been
+at once dismissed. The clue only came later from a man named John
+Pantutun, a native of the Banks Islands, who had been a teacher in
+Pentecost. In talking to me he often mentioned in a most instructive
+manner resemblances and differences between the customs of his own
+island and those he had observed in Pentecost. One day he let fall
+the observation with just such a manner as that in which we so often
+accuse neighbouring nations of ridiculous or disgusting practices, "O!
+Raga![14] That is the place where they marry their granddaughters." I
+saw at once that he had given me a possible explanation of the peculiar
+features of the system of the island. By that time I had forgotten
+the details of the Pentecost system, and it occurred to me that it
+would be interesting, not immediately to consult my note-books, but
+to endeavour to construct a system of relationship which would be the
+result of marriage with a granddaughter, and then to see how far my
+theoretical construction agreed with the terminology I had recorded.
+The first question which arose was with which kind of granddaughter
+the marriage had been practised, with the son's daughter or with the
+daughter's daughter, and this was a question readily answered by means
+of a consideration arising out of the nature of the social organisation
+of Pentecost.
+
+[14] This is the Mota name for Pentecost Island.
+
+The society of this island is organised on the dual basis with
+matrilineal descent in which a man must marry a woman of the opposite
+moiety. Diagram 3, in which _A_ and _a_ stand for men and women of
+one moiety, and _B_ and _b_ for those of the other moiety, shows that
+a marriage between a man and his son's daughter would be out of the
+question, for it would be a case of _A_ marrying _a_. It was evident
+that the marriage, the consequences of which I had to formulate, must
+have been one in which a man married his daughter's daughter.
+
+[Illustration: DIAGRAM 3.
+
+                   A = b
+                     |
+                     |
+       +-------------+-------------+
+       |                           |
+       B = a                   A = b
+         |                       |
+  +------+------+        +-------+-------+
+  |             |        |               |
+  A             a        B               b
+]
+
+It would take too long to go through the whole set of relationships,
+and I choose only a few examples which I illustrate by the following
+diagram:
+
+[Illustration: DIAGRAM 4.
+
+          A = b
+            |
+            |
+        D = c
+          |
+          |
+  +-------+-------+
+  |       |       |
+  e       F       f
+]
+
+This diagram shows that if _A_ marries _e_, _c_, who previous to the
+marriage had been only the daughter of _A_, now becomes also his wife's
+mother; and _D_, who had previously been his daughter's husband, now
+becomes his wife's father. Similarly, _F_, who before the new marriage
+was the daughter's son of _A_, now becomes the brother of his wife,
+while _f_, his daughter's daughter, becomes his wife's sister. Lastly,
+if we assume that it would be the elder daughters of the daughter who
+would be married by their grandfathers, _e_, who before the marriage
+had been the elder sister of _F_ and _f_, now comes through her
+marriage to occupy the position of their mother's mother.
+
+When, after making these deductions, I examined my record of the
+Pentecost terms, I found that its terminology corresponded exactly with
+those which had been deduced. The wife's mother and the daughter were
+both called _nitu_. The daughter's husband and the wife's father were
+both _bwaliga_. The daughter's children were called _mabi_, and this
+term was also used for the brother and sister of the wife. Lastly, the
+mother's mother was found to be classed with the elder sister, both
+being called _tuaga_.
+
+For the sake of simplicity of demonstration I have assumed that a man
+marries his own daughter's daughter, but through the classificatory
+principle all the features I have described would follow equally well
+if a man married the granddaughter of his brother, either in the narrow
+or the classificatory sense. There was one correspondence, according
+to which both the husband's brother and the mother's father were
+called _sibi_, which does not follow from the marriage with the own
+granddaughter, but would be the natural result of marriage with the
+daughter's daughter of the brother--_i.e._, with a marriage in which
+_e_ was married by _A's_ brother.
+
+I hope these examples will be sufficient to show how a number of
+features which might otherwise seem so absurd as to suggest a system of
+relationship gone mad become natural and intelligible, even obvious,
+if it were once the established practice of the people to marry the
+daughter's daughter of the brother.
+
+Such inquiries as I was able to make confirmed the conclusion that the
+Pentecost marriage was with the granddaughter of the brother rather
+than with the daughter of the daughter herself. After I had been put
+on the track of the explanation by John Pantutun I had the chance of
+talking to only one native of Pentecost, unfortunately not a very
+good informant. From his evidence it appeared that the marriage I had
+inferred from the system of relationship even now occurs in the island,
+but only with the granddaughter of the brother, and that marriage with
+the own granddaughter is forbidden. The evidence is not as complete as
+I should like, but it points to the actual existence in the island of a
+peculiar form of marriage from which the extraordinary features of its
+system of relationship directly follow.
+
+When I returned to England I found that this marriage was not unique,
+but had been recorded among the Dieri of Australia,[15] where, as I
+have already mentioned, it is associated with peculiar features of
+nomenclature resembling those of Pentecost.
+
+[15] Howitt, _Native Tribes of South-East Australia_, pp. 164, 177.
+
+I must again ask, how are you going to explain the features of the
+Pentecost system psychologically? What psychological resemblance is
+there between a grandmother and a sister, between a mother-in-law and a
+daughter, between a brother-in-law and a grandfather? Apart from some
+special form of social relationship, there can be no such resemblances.
+Further, if there were such psychological resemblances, why should we
+know of their influence on nomenclature only in Pentecost and among the
+Dieri? The features to be explained are definitely known to exist in
+only two systems of the world, and it is only among the peoples who use
+these two systems that we have any evidence of that extraordinary form
+of marriage of which they would be the natural consequence.
+
+       *       *       *       *       *
+
+I have now tried to show the dependence of special features of the
+classificatory system of relationship upon special social conditions.
+If I have succeeded in this I shall have gone far towards the
+accomplishment of one of the main purposes of these lectures. They
+have, however, another purpose, viz., to inquire how far we are
+justified in inferring the existence of a social institution of which
+we have no direct evidence when we find features of the nomenclature
+of relationship which would result from such an institution. I have
+now to enter upon this part of my subject, and I think it will be
+instructive to take you at once to a case in which I believe that an
+extraordinary form of marriage can be established as a feature of the
+past history of a people, although at the present moment any direct
+evidence for the existence of such a marriage is wholly lacking.
+
+When I was in the interior of Viti Levu, one of the Fijian islands,
+I discovered the existence of certain systems of relationship which
+differed fundamentally from the only Fijian systems previously known.
+Any features referable to the cross-cousin marriage were completely
+absent, but in their place were others, one of which I have already
+mentioned, which brought into one class relatives two generations
+apart. The father's father received the same designation as the
+elder brother, and the son's wife was called by the same term as the
+mother. As I have already said, my first conclusion was that these
+terms were the survivals of forms of social organisation resembling
+the matrimonial classes of Australia, but as soon as I had worked out
+the explanation of the Pentecost system, it became evident that the
+Fijian peculiarities would have to be explained on similar lines. At
+first I thought it probable that the difference between the Pentecost
+and Fijian systems was due to the difference in the mode of descent
+in the two places. For long I tried to work out schemes whereby a
+change from the matrilineal descent of Pentecost to the patrilineal
+condition of Fiji could have had as one of its consequences a change
+from a correspondence in nomenclature between the mother's mother
+and the elder sister to one in which the common nomenclature applied
+to the father's father and the elder brother. It is an interesting
+example of the strength of a preconceived opinion, and of some
+measure of the belief in the impossibility of customs not practised
+by ourselves, that for more than two years I failed to see an obvious
+alternative explanation, although I returned to the subject again and
+again. The clue came at last from the system of Buin, in the island
+of Bougainville, recorded by Dr. Thurnwald.[16] The nomenclature of
+this system agreed with that of inland Fiji in having one term for the
+father's father and the elder brother, but since the people of Buin
+still practice matrilineal descent, it was evident that I had been on
+a false track in supposing the correspondence to have been the result
+of a change in the mode of descent. Once turned into a fresh path by
+the necessity of showing how the correspondence could have arisen out
+of a matrilineal condition, it was not long before I saw how it might
+be accounted for in a very different way. I saw that the correspondence
+would be the natural result of a form of social organisation in which
+it was the practice to marry a grandmother, viz., the wife of the
+father's father. Not only did this form of marriage explain the second
+peculiar feature of the Fijian system, viz., the classing of the son's
+wife with the mother, but it would also account for several features of
+the Buin system which would otherwise be difficult to understand.
+
+[16] _Zeitsch. f. vergleich. Rechtswiss._, 1910, xxiii., 330.
+
+[Illustration: DIAGRAM 5.
+
+      A = b
+        |
+        |
+        C = d
+          |
+          |
+  +-------+-------+
+  |       |       |
+  E       F       f
+]
+
+If, as shown in Diagram 5, _E_ marries _b_, the wife or widow of his
+father's father, he, who had previously been the elder brother of _F_
+and _f_, now comes to occupy the position of their father's father,
+while _d_, the mother of _E_, will now come to stand to him in the
+relationship of son's wife.
+
+I need only mention here one of the features of the Buin system which
+can be accounted for by means of this marriage. The term _mamai_ is
+used, not only for the elder sister and for the elder brother's wife,
+but it is also applied to the father's mother; that is, the wife of
+the elder brother is designated by the same term as the wife of the
+father's father, exactly as must happen if _E_ marries _b_, the wife
+of his father's father. A number of extraordinary features from two
+Melanesian islands collected by two independent workers fit into a
+coherent scheme if they have been the result of a marriage in which
+a man gives one of his wives to his son's son during his life, or in
+which this woman is taken to wife by her husband's grandson when she
+becomes a widow. If the practice were ever sufficiently habitual to
+become the basis of the system of relationship, we can be confident
+that it is the former of these two alternatives with which we have to
+do.
+
+If you are still so under the domination of ideas derived from your own
+social surroundings that you cannot believe in such a marriage, I would
+remind you that there is definite evidence from the Banks Islands that
+men used to hand over wives to their sisters' sons. It is not taking us
+so much into the unknown as it might appear to suppose that they once
+also gave their wives to their sons' sons.
+
+I have taken this case somewhat out of its proper place in my argument
+because the evidence is so closely connected with that by means
+of which I have shown the relation between features of systems of
+relationship and peculiar forms of marriage in Melanesia. I have now to
+return to the more sober task of considering how far we are justified
+in inferring the former existence of marriage institutions when we
+find features of systems of relationship of which they would have been
+the natural consequence. It is evident that, whenever we find such a
+feature as common nomenclature for a grandmother and a sister or for a
+cross-cousin and a parent, it should suggest to us the possibility of
+such marriage regulations as those of Pentecost and the Banks Islands.
+But such common designations might have arisen in some other way,
+and in order to establish the existence of such forms of marriage in
+the past history of the people, we must have criteria to guide us
+when we are considering whether a given feature of the terminology of
+relationship is or is not a survival of a marriage institution.
+
+I will return to the cross-cousin marriage for my examples. The task
+before us is to inquire how far such features of relationship as exist
+in Fiji, Anaiteum or Guadalcanar, in conjunction with the cross-cousin
+marriage, will justify us in inferring the former existence of this
+form of marriage in places where it is not now practised.
+
+If there be found among any people all the characteristic features of
+a coastal Fijian or of an Anaiteum system, I think few will be found
+to doubt the former existence of the cross-cousin marriage. It would
+seem almost inconceivable that there should ever have existed any other
+conditions, whether social or psychological, which could have produced
+this special combination of peculiar uses of terms of relationship. It
+is when some only of these features are present that there will arise
+any serious doubt whether they are to be regarded as survivals of the
+former existence of the cross-cousin marriage.
+
+One consideration I must point out at once. Certain of the features
+which follow from the cross-cousin marriage may be the result of
+another marriage regulation. In some parts of the world there exists a
+custom of exchanging brothers and sisters, so that, when a man marries
+a woman, his sister marries his wife's brother. As the result of this
+custom the mother's brother and the father's sister's husband will come
+to be one and the same person, and the father's sister will become also
+the mother's brother's wife.
+
+This form of marriage exists among the western people of Torres
+Straits,[17] and is accompanied by features of the system of
+relationship which would follow from the practice. The mother's brother
+is classed with the father's sister's husband as _wad-wam_, but there
+is an alternative term for the father's sister's husband and there
+was no evidence that the mother's brother's wife was classed with
+the father's sister. It seemed possible that the classing together
+of the mother's brother and the father's sister's husband was not a
+constant feature of the system of relationship, but only occurred in
+cases where the custom of exchange had made it necessary. The case,
+however, is sufficient to show that two of the correspondences which
+follow from the cross-cousin marriage may be the result of another
+kind of marriage. If we accept the social causation of such features
+and find these correspondences alone, it would still remain an open
+question whether they were the results of the custom of exchange or
+of the marriage of cross-cousins. The custom of exchange, however, is
+wholly incapable of accounting for the use of a common term for the
+mother's brother and the father-in-law, for the father's sister and the
+mother-in-law, or for cross-cousins and brothers- or sisters-in-law.
+It is only when these correspondences are present that there will
+be any decisive reason for inferring the former existence of the
+cross-cousin marriage.
+
+[17] _Rep. Cambridge Expedition to Torres Straits_, vol. v., pp. 135
+and 241.
+
+The first conclusion, then, is that some of the features found in
+association with the cross-cousin marriage are of greater value than
+others in enabling us to infer the former existence of the cross-cousin
+marriage where it no longer exists. Next, the probability that such
+features as I am considering are due to the former presence of the
+cross-cousin marriage will be greatly heightened if this form of
+marriage should exist among people with allied cultures. An instance
+from Melanesia will bring out this point clearly.
+
+In the island of Florida in the Solomons it is clear that the
+cross-cousin marriage is not now the custom, and I could discover
+no tradition of its existence in the past. One feature, however, of
+the system of relationship is just such as would follow from the
+cross-cousin marriage. Both the wife's mother and the wife of the
+mother's brother are called _vungo_.
+
+Florida is not only near Guadalcanar where the cross-cousin marriage
+is practised, (the two islands are within sight of one another), but
+their cultures are very closely related. In such a case the probability
+that the single feature of the Florida system which follows from the
+cross-cousin marriage has actually had that form of marriage as its
+antecedent becomes very great, and this conclusion becomes still more
+probable when we find that in a third island, Ysabel, closely allied
+in culture both to Florida and Guadalcanar, there is a clear tradition
+of the former practice of the cross-cousin marriage although it is now
+only an occasional event.
+
+Again, in one district of San Cristoval in the Solomons the term
+_fongo_ is used both for the father-in-law and the father's sister's
+husband, and _kafongo_ similarly denotes both the mother-in-law and
+the mother's brother's wife. This island differs more widely from
+Guadalcanar in culture than Florida or Ysabel, but the evidence for
+the former existence of the marriage in these islands gives us more
+confidence in ascribing the common designations of San Cristoval to the
+cross-cousin marriage than would have been the case if these common
+designations had been the only examples of such possible survivals in
+the Solomons. Speaking in more general terms, one may say that the
+probability that the common nomenclature for two relatives is the
+survival of a form of marriage becomes the greater, the more similar is
+the general culture in which the supposed survival is found to that of
+a people who practise this form of marriage. The case will be greatly
+strengthened if there should be intermediate links between the supposed
+survival and the still living institution.
+
+When we find a feature such as that of the Florida system among a
+people none of whose allies in culture practise the cross-cousin
+marriage, the matter must be far more doubtful. In the present state
+of our knowledge we are only justified in making such a feature the
+basis of a working hypothesis to stimulate research and encourage us
+to look for other evidence in the neighbourhood of the place where the
+feature has been found. Our knowledge of the social institutions of the
+world is not yet so complete that we can afford to neglect any clue
+which may guide our steps.
+
+I propose briefly to consider two regions, South India and North
+America, to show how they differ from this point of view.
+
+The terms of relationship used in three[18] of the chief languages
+spoken by the people of South India are exactly such as would follow
+from the cross-cousin marriage. In Tamil[19] the mother's brother, the
+father's sister's husband, and the father of both husband and wife are
+all called _mama_, and this term is also used for these relatives in
+Telegu. In Canarese the mother's brother and the father-in-law are both
+called _mava_, but the father's sister's husband fails to fall into
+line and is classed with the father's brother.
+
+[18] I know of no complete record of the terminology of the fourth
+chief language of South India, Malayalam.
+
+[19] I take my data from the lists compiled for Morgan by the Rev. E.
+C. Scudder and the Rev. B. Rice, Morgan's _Systems ..._, pp. 537-566.
+These lists are not complete, giving in some cases only the terms used
+in address. They agree in general with some lists compiled during the
+recent Indian Census which Mr. E. A. Gait has kindly sent to me.
+
+Similarly, the father's sister, the mother's brother's wife and the
+mother of both wife and husband are called _atta_ in Telegu and _atte_
+in Canarese, Tamil here spoiling the harmony by having one term,
+_attai_, for the father's sister and another, _mami_, for the mother's
+brother's wife and the mother-in-law. Since, however, the Tamil term
+for the father's sister is only another form of the Telegu and Canarese
+words for the combined relationships, the exception only serves to
+strengthen the agreement with the condition which would follow from the
+cross-cousin marriage.
+
+The South Indian terms for cross-cousin and brother- and sister-in-law
+are complicated by the presence of distinctions dependent on the sex
+and relative age of those who use them, but these complications do
+not disguise how definitely the terminology would follow from the
+cross-cousin marriage. Thus, to take only two examples: a Tamil man
+applies the term _maittuni_ to the daughters of his mother's brother
+and of his father's sister as well as to his brother's wife and his
+wife's sister, and a Canarese woman uses one term for the sons of her
+mother's brother and of her father's sister, for her husband's brother
+and her sister's husband.
+
+So far as we know, the cross-cousin marriage is not now practised by
+the vast majority of those who use these terms of relationship. If the
+terminology has been the result of the cross-cousin marriage, it is
+only a survival of an ancient social condition in which this form of
+marriage was habitual. That it is such a survival, however, becomes
+certain when we find the cross-cousin marriage still persisting in
+many parts of South India, and that among one such people at least,
+the Todas,[20] this form of marriage is associated with a system of
+relationship agreeing both in its structure and linguistic character
+with that of the Tamils. I have elsewhere[21] brought together the
+evidence for the former prevalence of this form of marriage in India,
+but even if there were no evidence, the terminology of relationship is
+so exactly such as would follow from the cross-cousin marriage that we
+can be certain that this form of marriage was once the habitual custom
+of the people of South India.
+
+[20] Rivers, _The Todas_, 1906, pp. 487, 512.
+
+[21] _Journal Royal Asiatic Society_, 1907, p. 611.
+
+While South India thus provides a good example of a case in which we
+can confidently infer the former existence of the cross-cousin marriage
+from the terminology of relationship, the evidence from North America
+is of a kind which gives to such an inference only a certain degree of
+probability. In this case it is necessary to suspend judgment and await
+further evidence before coming to a positive conclusion.
+
+I will begin with a very doubtful feature which comes from an
+Athapascan tribe, the Red Knives[22] (probably that now called Yellow
+Knife). These people use a common term, _set-so_, for the father's
+sister, the mother's brother's wife, the wife's mother and the
+husband's mother, a usage which would be the necessary result of
+the cross-cousin marriage. Against this, however, is to be put the
+fact that there are three different terms for the corresponding male
+relatives, the two kinds of father-in-law being called _seth-a_,
+the mother's brother _ser-a_, and the father's sister's husband
+_sel-the-ne_. Further, the term _set-so_, the common use of which for
+the aunt and mother-in-law seems to indicate the cross-cousin marriage,
+is also applied by a man to his brother's wife and his wife's sister,
+features which cannot possibly be the result of this form of marriage.
+These features show, either that the terminology has arisen in some
+other way, or that there has been some additional social factor in
+operation which has greatly modified a nomenclature derived from the
+cross-cousin marriage.
+
+[22] See Morgan, _Systems ..._, Table II.
+
+A stronger case is presented by the terminology of three branches
+of the Cree tribe, also recorded by Morgan. In all three systems,
+one term, _ne-sis_ or _nee-sis_, is used for the mother's brother,
+the father's sister's husband, the wife's father and the husband's
+father; while the term _nis-si-goos_ applies to the father's sister,
+the mother's brother's wife and the two kinds of mother-in-law. These
+usages are exactly such as would follow from the cross-cousin marriage.
+The terms for the sister's son of a man and the brother's son of a
+woman, however, differ from those used for the son-in-law, and there
+is also no correspondence between the terms for cross-cousin and any
+kind of brother- or sister-in-law. The case points more definitely to
+the cross-cousin marriage than in the case of the Red Knives, but yet
+lacks the completeness which would allow us to make the inference with
+confidence.
+
+The Assiniboin have a common term, _me-toh-we_, used for the father's
+sister, the mother's brother's wife and the two kinds of mother-in-law,
+and also a common term, _me-nake-she_, for the mother's brother and
+the father's sister's husband, but the latter differs from the word,
+_me-to-ga-she_, used for the father of husband or wife. The case here
+is decidedly stronger than among the Red Knives, but is less complete
+than among the Crees.
+
+Among a number of branches of the Dakotas the evidence is of a
+different kind, being derived from similar nomenclature for the
+cross-cousin and certain kinds of brother- and sister-in-law.
+Morgan[23] has recorded eight systems, all of which show the features
+in question, but I will consider here only that of the Isauntie or
+Santee Dakotas, which was collected for him by the Rev. S. R. Riggs.
+Riggs[24] and Dorsey[25] have given independent accounts of this system
+which are far less complete than that given by Morgan, but agree with
+it in all essentials.
+
+[23] _Loc. cit._
+
+[24] _Dakota Grammar, Texts, and Ethnography: Contributions to North
+American Ethnology_, Washington, vol. ix.
+
+[25] Preface to above.
+
+In this system a man calls the son of his mother's brother or of
+his father's sister _ta-hang-she_ or _tang-hang-she_, while his
+wife's brother and his sister's husband are _ta-hang_ or _tang-hang_.
+Similarly, a woman calls her cross-cousin _she-chay-she_, while her
+husband's brother and her sister's husband are called _she-chay_. The
+terms for brothers-in-law are thus the same as those for cross-cousins
+with the omission of the suffix _she_. One of these resemblances, that
+when a woman is speaking, has been cited by Professor Kroeber[26] as an
+example of the psychological causation of such features of relationship
+as I am considering in these lectures. He rejects its dependence on the
+cross-cousin marriage and refers the resemblance to the psychological
+similarity between a woman's cousin and her brother-in-law in that both
+are collateral relatives alike in sex, of the same generation as the
+speaker, but different from her in sex.
+
+[26] _Op. cit._, p. 82.
+
+As we have seen, however, the Dakota correspondence is not an isolated
+occurrence, but fits in with a number of other features of the systems
+of cognate peoples to form a body of evidence pointing to the former
+prevalence of the cross-cousin marriage.
+
+There is also indirect evidence leading in the same direction. In
+Melanesia there is reason to believe that the cross-cousin marriage
+stands in a definite relation to another form of marriage, that with
+the wife of the mother's brother. If there should be evidence for the
+former existence of this marriage in North America, it would increase
+the probability in favour of the cross-cousin marriage.
+
+Among a number of peoples, some of whom form part of the Sioux,
+including the Minnitarees, Crows, Choctas, Creeks, Cherokees and
+Pawnees, cross-cousins are classed with parents and children exactly as
+in the Banks Islands, and exactly as in those islands, it is the son of
+the father's sister who is classed with the father, and the children of
+the mother's brother who are classed with sons or daughters. Further,
+among the Pawnees the wife of the mother's brother is classed with
+the wife, a feature also associated with the peculiar nomenclature
+for cross-cousins in the Banks Islands. The agreement is so close as
+to make it highly probable that the American features of relationship
+have been derived from a social institution of the same kind as that
+to which the Melanesian features are due, and that it was once the
+custom of these American peoples to marry the wife of the mother's
+brother. Here, as in the case of the cross-cousin marriage itself,
+the case rests entirely upon the terminology of relationship, but we
+cannot ignore the association in neighbouring parts of North America of
+features of relationship which would be the natural consequence of two
+forms of marriage which are known to be associated together elsewhere.
+
+I am indebted to Miss Freire-Marreco for the information that the Tewa
+of Hano, a Pueblo tribe, call the father's sister's son _tada_, a term
+otherwise used for the father, thus suggesting that they also may once
+have practised marriage with the wife of the mother's brother. The
+use of this term, however, is only one example of a practice whereby
+all the males of the father's clan are called _tada_, irrespective of
+age and generation. The common nomenclature for the father and the
+father's sister's son among the Tewa thus differs in character from
+the apparently similar nomenclature of the Banks Islands and cannot
+have been determined directly, perhaps not even remotely, by marriage
+with the wife of the mother's brother. This raises the question whether
+the nomenclature of the Sioux has not arisen out of a practice similar
+to that of the Tewa. The terms for other relatives recorded by Morgan
+show some evidence of the widely generalised use of the Tewa, but such
+a use cannot account for the classing of the wife of the mother's
+brother with the wife which occurs among the Pawnees. Nevertheless, the
+Tewa practice should keep us alive to the possibility that the Sioux
+nomenclature may depend on some social condition different from that
+which has been effective in the Banks Islands in spite of the close
+resemblance between the two.
+
+The case for the former existence of the cross-cousin marriage will be
+much strengthened if this form of marriage should occur elsewhere in
+North America. So far as I am aware, the only people among whom it has
+been recorded are the Haidahs of Queen Charlotte Island.[27] It is
+a far cry from this outpost of North American culture to Dakota, but
+it may be noted that it is among the Crees who formerly lived in the
+intermediate region of Manitoba and Assiniboia that the traces of the
+cross-cousin marriage are most definite. This mode of distribution of
+the peoples whose terminology of relationship bears evidence of the
+cross-cousin marriage suggests that other intermediate links may yet
+be found. Though the existing evidence is inconclusive, it should be
+sufficient to stimulate a search for other evidence which may make it
+possible to decide whether or no the cross-cousin marriage was once a
+widespread practice in North America.
+
+[27] Swanton, _Contributions to the Ethnology of the Haidahs, Jesup
+North Pacific Expedition_, 1905, vol. v., pt. i., p. 62. Miss
+Freire-Marreco tells me that the cross-cousin marriage occurs among
+some of the Hopi Indians.
+
+I can only consider one other kind of marriage here. The discovery of
+so remarkable a union as that with the daughter's daughter in Pentecost
+and the evidence pointing to a still more remarkable marriage between
+those having the status of grandparent and grandchild in Fiji and
+Buin have naturally led me to look for similar evidence elsewhere
+in Melanesia. Though there is nothing conclusive, conditions are to
+be found here and there which suggest the former existence of such
+marriages.
+
+When I was in the Solomons I met a native of the Trobriand Islands,
+who told me that among his people the term _tabu_ was applied both
+to grandparents and to the father's sister's child. I went into the
+whole subject as fully as was possible with only one witness, but in
+spite of his obvious intelligence and good faith, I remained doubtful
+whether the information was correct. The feature in question, however,
+occurs in the list of Trobriand terms drawn up for Dr. Seligmann[28]
+by Mr. Bellamy, and with this double warrant it must be accepted. It
+is a feature which would follow from marriage with the daughter's
+daughter, for by this marriage one who was previously a father's
+sister's daughter becomes the wife of a grandfather and thereby attains
+the status of a grandparent. The feature exists alone, and, further,
+it is combined with other applications of the term which deprive it
+of some of its significance; nevertheless, the fact that a peculiar
+and exceptional feature of a Melanesian system of relationship is such
+as would follow naturally from a form of marriage which is practised
+in another part of Melanesia cannot be passed over. Standing alone,
+it would be wholly insufficient to justify the conclusion that the
+marriage with the daughter's daughter was ever prevalent among the
+Massim, but in place of expressing a dogmatic denial, let us look for
+other features of Massim sociology which may have been the results of
+such a marriage.
+
+[28] See _The Melanesians of British New Guinea_, Cambridge, 1910, p.
+707.
+
+In Wagawaga[29] there is a peculiar term, _warihi_, which is used
+by men for other men of their own generation and social group, but
+the term is also applied by an old man or woman to one of a younger
+generation. Again, in Tubetube[30] the term for a husband, _taubara_,
+is also a term for an old man, and the term for the wife is also
+applied to an old woman. These usages may be nothing more than
+indications of respect for a husband or wife, or of some mechanism
+which brought those differing widely in age into one social category,
+but with the clue provided by the Trobriand term of relationship it
+becomes possible, though even now only possible, that the Wagawaga and
+Tubetube customs may have arisen out of a social condition in which
+it was customary to have great disparity of age between husbands and
+wives, and social relations between old and young following from such
+disparity in the age of consorts.
+
+[29] _Ibid._, pp. 482 and 436.
+
+[30] _The Melanesians of British New Guinea_, Cambridge, 1910, p. 482.
+
+In Tubetube there is yet another piece of evidence. Mr. Field[31]
+has recorded the existence in this island of three named categories
+of persons, two of which comprise relatives with whom marriage is
+prohibited, while the third groups together those with whom marriage
+is allowed. The grandparents and grandchildren are included in one of
+the two prohibited classes, so that we can be confident that marriage
+between these relatives does not now occur. The point to which I call
+your attention is that the class of relative with whom marriage is
+allowed is called _kasoriegogoli_. _Li_ is the third person pronominal
+suffix, and we do not know the meaning of _kasorie_, but _goga_ is
+the term used in Wagawaga and Wedau for the grandparents, its place
+being taken by the usual Melanesian term _tubu_ in Tubetube. The term
+_kasoriegogoli_ applied to marriageable relatives thus contains as one
+of its constituent elements a word which is probably the ancient term
+for grandparent in the island, since it is still used in this sense in
+the closely allied societies of the mainland.
+
+[31] Rep. Austral. Ass., 1900, viii., 301.
+
+We have thus a number of independent facts among the Massim, all of
+which would be the natural outcome of marriage between persons of
+alternate generations. To no one of them standing alone could much
+importance be attached, but taken in conjunction, they ought at least
+to suggest the possibility of such a marriage, a possibility which
+becomes the more probable when we consider that the Massim show clear
+evidence of the dual organisation of society with matrilineal descent
+which is associated with the granddaughter marriage of Pentecost and
+the Dieri of Australia. It adds to the weight of the evidence that
+indications of this peculiar form of marriage should be found among a
+people whose social organisation so closely resembles that in which the
+marriages between persons of alternate generations elsewhere occur.
+
+I have no time for other examples. I hope to have shown that there are
+cases in which it is possible to infer with certainty the ancient
+existence of forms of marriage from the survival of their results in
+the terminology of relationship. In other cases, differences of culture
+or the absence of intermediate links make it unjustifiable to infer
+the ancient existence of the forms of marriage from which features of
+terminology might be derived. Other cases lie between the two, the
+confidence with which a form of marriage can be inferred varying with
+the degree of likeness of culture, the distance in space, and the
+presence or absence of other features of culture which may be related
+to the form of marriage in question. Even in the cases, however, where
+the inference is most doubtful, we have no right dogmatically to deny
+the origin of the terminology of relationship in social conditions, but
+should keep each example before an open mind, to guide and stimulate
+inquiry in a region where ethnologists have till now only scratched the
+surface covering a rich mine of knowledge.
+
+
+
+
+LECTURE III
+
+
+Thus far in these lectures I have been content to demonstrate the
+dependence of the terminology of relationship upon forms of marriage.
+In spending so much time upon this aspect of my subject I fear that
+I may have been helping to strengthen a very general misconception,
+for it is frequently supposed that the sole aim of those who think
+as I do is to explain systems of relationship by their origin in
+forms of marriage. Marriage is only one of the social institutions
+which have moulded the terminology of relationship. It is, however,
+so fundamental a social institution that it is difficult to get far
+away from it in any argument which deals with social organisation. In
+now passing to other examples of the dependence of the terminology of
+relationship upon social conditions, I begin with one in which features
+of this terminology have come about, not as the result of forms of
+marriage, but of an attitude towards social regulations connected with
+marriage. The instance I have now to consider is closely allied to one
+which Professor Kroeber has used as his pattern of the psychological
+causation of the terminology of relationship.
+
+Both in Polynesia and Melanesia it is not infrequent for the
+father-in-law to be classed with the father, the mother-in-law with
+the mother, the brother-in-law with the brother, and the sister-in-law
+with the sister. The Oceanic terminology of relationship has two
+features which enable us to study the exact nature of this process in
+more detail than is possible with our own system. Oceanic languages
+often distinguish carefully between different kinds of brother- and
+sister-in-law, and, if it be found that it is only certain kinds of
+brother- or sister-in-law who are classed with the brother or sister,
+we may thereby obtain a clue to the nature of the process whereby
+the classing has come about. Secondly, Oceanic terminology usually
+distinguishes relationships between men or between women from those
+between persons of different sex, and there is a feature of the
+terminology employed when brothers- or sisters-in-law are classed with
+brothers or sisters in Oceania which throws much light on the process
+whereby this common nomenclature has come into use.
+
+The first point to be noticed in the Oceanic nomenclature of
+relationship is that not all brothers- and sisters-in-law are classed
+with brothers and sisters, but only those of different sex. Thus,
+in Merlav, in the Banks Islands, it is only the wife's sister and
+a man's brother's wife who are classed with the sister, and the
+husband's brother and a woman's sister's husband who are classed with
+the brother, while there are special terms for other categories
+of relative whom we include under the designations brother- and
+sister-in-law. Similar conditions are general throughout Melanesia. If,
+as Professor Kroeber has supposed, the classing of the brother-in-law
+with the brother be due to the psychological similarity of the
+relationships, we ought to be able to discover why this similarity
+should be greater between persons of different sex than between persons
+of the same sex.
+
+If now we study our case from the Banks Islands more closely and
+compare the social conditions in Merlav with those of other islands
+of the group, we find definite evidence, which it will not now be
+possible to consider in detail, showing that sexual relations were
+formerly allowed between a man and his wife's sisters and his brothers'
+wives, and that there is a definite association between the classing
+of these relatives with the sister and the cessation of such sexual
+relations. If such people as the Melanesians wish to emphasise in the
+strongest manner possible the impropriety of sexual relations between
+a man and the sisters of his wife, there is no way in which they can
+do it more effectually than by classing these relatives with a sister.
+To a Melanesian, as to other people of rude culture, the use of a
+term otherwise applied to a sister carries with it such deeply-seated
+associations as to put sexual relations absolutely out of the question.
+There is a large body of evidence from southern Melanesia which
+suggests strongly, if not conclusively, that the common nomenclature
+I am now considering has arisen out of the social need for emphasising
+the impropriety of relations which were once habitual among the people.
+
+The second feature of Melanesian terminology which I have mentioned
+helps us to understand how the common nomenclature has come about.
+In most of the Melanesian cases in which a wife's sister is denoted
+by a term otherwise used for a sister, or a husband's brother by a
+term otherwise used for a brother, the term employed is one which is
+normally used between those of the same sex. Thus, a man does not apply
+to his wife's sister the term which he himself uses for his sister, but
+one which would be used by a woman of her sister. In other words, a man
+uses for his wife's sister the term which is used for this relative
+by his wife. This shows us how the common nomenclature may have come
+into use. It suggests that as sexual relations with the wife's sister
+became no longer orthodox, a man came to apply to this woman the word
+with which he was already familiar as a term for this relative from
+the mouth of his wife. The special feature of Melanesian nomenclature
+according to which terms of relationship vary with the sex of the
+speaker here helps us to understand how the common nomenclature arose.
+The process is one in which psychological factors evidently play an
+important part, but these psychological factors are themselves the
+outcome of a social process, viz., the change from a condition of
+sexual communism to one in which sexual relations are restricted to
+the partners of a marriage. Such psychological factors as come into
+action are only intermediate links in a chain of causation in which the
+two ends are definitely social processes or events, or, perhaps more
+correctly, psychological concomitants of intermediate links which are
+themselves social events. We should be shutting our eyes to obvious
+features of these Melanesian customs if we refused to recognise that
+the terminology of relationship here "reflects" sociology.
+
+This leads me to question for a moment whether it may not be the same
+with that custom of our own society which Professor Kroeber has taken
+as his example of the psychological causation of the terminology
+of relationship. Is it as certain as Professor Kroeber supposes
+that the classing of the brother-in-law with the brother, or of the
+sister-in-law with the sister, among ourselves does not reflect
+sociology? We know that there are social factors at work among us which
+give to these relationships, and especially to that of wife's sister,
+a very great importance. If instead of stating dogmatically that this
+feature of our own terminology is due to the psychological similarity
+of the relationships, Professor Kroeber's mind had been open even to
+the possibility of the working of social causes, I think he might
+have been led to inquire more closely into the distribution and exact
+character of the practice in question. He might have been led to see
+that we have here a problem for exact inquiry. Such a custom among
+ourselves must certainly own a cause different from that to which I
+have ascribed the Melanesian practice, but is it certain that there is
+no social practice among ourselves which would lead to the classing
+of the wife's sister with the sister and the sister's husband of a
+woman with the brother? I will only point to the practice of marrying
+the deceased wife's sister, and content myself with the remark that I
+should be surprised if there were any general tendency to class these
+relatives together by a people among whom this form of marriage is the
+orthodox and habitual custom.
+
+Till now I have been dealing with relatively small variations of the
+classificatory system. The varieties I have so far considered are such
+as would arise out of a common system if in one place there came into
+vogue the cross-cousin marriage, in another place marriage with the
+wife of the mother's brother, in another that with the granddaughter
+of the brother or with the wife of the grandfather, and in yet
+other places combinations of these forms of marriage. I have now to
+consider whether it is possible to refer the main varieties of the
+classificatory system to social conditions; as an example with which
+to begin, I choose one which is so definite that it attracted the
+attention of Morgan, viz., the variety of the classificatory system
+which Morgan called "Malayan". It is now generally recognised that
+this term was badly chosen. The variety so called was known to Morgan
+through the terminology of the Hawaiian Islands, and as the system
+of these islands was not only the first to be recorded, but is also
+that of which even now we have the most complete record, I propose
+to use it as the pattern and to speak of the Hawaiian system where
+Morgan spoke of the Malayan. If now we compare the Hawaiian system
+with the forms of the classificatory system found in other parts of
+Oceania, in Australia, India, Africa or America, we find that it is
+characterised by its extreme simplicity and by the fewness of its
+terms. Distinctions such as those between the father's brother and the
+mother's brother, between the father's sister and the mother's sister,
+and between the children of brothers or of sisters and the children
+of brother and sister, distinctions which are so generally present in
+the more usual forms of the classificatory system, are here completely
+absent. The problem before us is to discover whether the absence of
+these distinctions can be referred to any social factors. If not, we
+may be driven to suppose that there is something in the structure of
+the Polynesian mind which leads the Hawaiian and the Maori to see
+similarities where most other peoples of rude culture see differences.
+
+The first point to be noted is that in Oceania the distinction between
+the Hawaiian and the more usual forms of the classificatory system
+does not correspond with the distinction between the Polynesian and
+Melanesian peoples. Systems are to be found in Melanesia, as in the
+western Solomons, which closely resemble that of Hawaii, while there
+are Polynesian systems, such as those of Tonga and Tikopia, which are
+so like those of Melanesia that, if they had occurred there, they would
+have attracted no special attention. The difference between the two
+kinds of system is not to be correlated with any difference of race.
+
+Next, if we take Melanesian and Polynesian systems as a whole, we find
+that they do not fall into two sharply marked-off groups, but that
+there are any number of intermediate gradations between the two. It
+would be possible to arrange the classificatory systems of Oceania in a
+series in which it would not be possible to draw the line at any point
+between the different varieties of system which the two ends of the
+series seem to represent. The question arises whether it is possible
+to find any other series of transitions in Oceania which runs parallel
+with the series connecting the two varieties of system of relationship.
+There is no doubt but that this question can be answered in the
+affirmative.
+
+Speaking broadly, there are two main varieties of social organisation
+in Oceania, with an infinite number of intermediate conditions. In one
+variety marriage is regulated by some kind of clan-exogamy, including
+under the term "clan" the moieties of a dual organisation; in the other
+variety marriage is regulated by kinship or genealogical relationship.
+We know of no part of Melanesia where marriage is regulated solely by
+clan-exogamy, but it is possible to arrange Melanesian and Polynesian
+societies in a series according to the different degrees in which the
+principles of genealogical relationship is the determining factor in
+the regulation of marriage. At one end of the series we should have
+places like the Banks Islands, the northern New Hebrides and the Santa
+Cruz Islands, where the clan-organisation is so obviously important
+that it was the only mechanism for the regulation of marriage which was
+recognised even by so skilful an observer as Dr. Codrington. At the
+other end of the series we have places such as the Hawaiian Islands
+and Eddystone Island in the western Solomons, where only the barest
+traces of a clan-organisation are to be found and where marriage is
+regulated solely by genealogical relationship. Between the two are
+numerous intermediate cases, and the series so formed runs so closely
+parallel to that representing the transitions between different forms
+of the classificatory system that it seems out of the question but
+that there should be a relation between the two. Of all the places
+where I have myself worked, the two in which I failed to find any trace
+of the regulation of marriage by means of a clan-organisation were
+the Hawaiian Islands and Eddystone Island, and the systems of both
+places were lacking in just those distinctions the absence of which
+characterised the Malayan system of Morgan. Only in one point did the
+Eddystone system differ from the Hawaiian. Though the mother's brother
+was classed in nomenclature with the father, there was a term for the
+sister's son, but it was so little used that in a superficial survey it
+would have escaped notice. Its use was so exceptional that many of the
+islanders were doubtful about its proper meaning. In other parts of the
+Solomons where the clan-organisation persists, but where the regulation
+of marriage by genealogical relationship is equally, if not more,
+important, the systems of relationship show intermediate characters.
+Thus, in the island of Florida the mother's brother was distinguished
+from the father and there was a term by means of which to distinguish
+cross-cousins from other kinds of cousin, but the father's sister was
+classed with the mother, and it was habitual to ignore the proper term
+for cross-cousins and to class them in nomenclature with brothers and
+sisters and with cousins of other kinds, as in the Hawaiian system.
+One influential man even applied the term for father to the mother's
+brother; it was evident that a change is even now in progress which
+would have to go very little farther to make the Florida system
+indistinguishable in structure from that of Hawaii.
+
+Among the western Papuo-Melanesians of New Guinea, again, the systems
+of relationship come very near to the Hawaiian type, and with this
+character there is associated a very high degree of importance of the
+regulation of marriage by genealogical relationship and a vagueness of
+clan-organisation. We have here so close a parallelism between two
+series of social phenomena as to supply as good an example as could be
+wished of the application of the method of concomitant variations in
+the domain of sociology.
+
+The nature of these changes and their relation to the general cultures
+of the peoples who use the different forms of terminology show that the
+transitions are to be associated with a progressive change which has
+taken place in Oceania. In this part of the world the classificatory
+system has been the seat of a process of simplification starting
+from the almost incredible complexity of Pentecost and reaching the
+simplicity of such systems as those of Eddystone or Mekeo. This process
+has gone hand in hand with one in which the regulation of marriage by
+some kind of clan-exogamy has gradually been replaced by a mechanism
+based on relationship as traced by means of pedigrees.
+
+If this conclusion be accepted, it will follow that the more widely
+distributed varieties of the classificatory system of relationship
+are associated with a social structure which has the exogamous social
+group as its essential unit. This position has only to be stated for
+it to become apparent how all the main features of the classificatory
+system are such as would follow directly from such a social structure.
+Wherever the classificatory system is found in association with a
+system of exogamous social groups, the terms of relationship do
+not apply merely to relatives with whom it is possible to trace
+genealogical relationship, but to all the members of a clan of a given
+generation, even if no such relationship with them can be traced. Thus,
+a man will not only apply the term "father" to all the brothers of his
+father, to all the sons' sons of his father's father, and to all the
+sons' sons' sons of his father's father's father, to all the husbands
+of his mother's sisters and of his mother's mother's granddaughters,
+etc., but he will also apply the term to all the members of his
+father's clan of the same generation as his father and to all the
+husbands of the women of the mother's clan of the same generation as
+the mother, even when it is quite impossible to show any genealogical
+relationship with them. All these and the other main features of the
+classificatory system become at once natural and intelligible if this
+system had its origin in a social structure in which exogamous social
+groups, such as the clan or moiety, were even more completely and
+essentially the social units than we know them to be to-day among the
+peoples whose social systems have been carefully studied. If you are
+dissatisfied with the word "classificatory" as a term for the system of
+relationship which is found in America, Africa, India, Australia and
+Oceania, you would be perfectly safe in calling it the "clan" system,
+and in inferring the ancient presence of a social structure based on
+the exogamous clan even if this structure were no longer present.
+
+Not only is the general character of the classificatory system exactly
+such as would be the consequence of its origin in a social structure
+founded on the exogamous social group, but many details of these
+systems point in the same direction. Thus, the rigorous distinctions
+between father's brother and mother's brother, and between father's
+sister and mother's sister, which are characteristic of the usual
+forms of the classificatory system, are the obvious consequence of the
+principle of exogamy. If this principle be in action, these relatives
+must always belong to different social groups, so that it would be
+natural to distinguish them in nomenclature.
+
+Further, there are certain features of the classificatory system which
+suggest its origin in a special form of exogamous social grouping,
+viz., that usually known as the dual system in which there are only two
+social groups or moieties. It is an almost universal feature of the
+classificatory system that the children of brothers are classed with
+the children of sisters. A man applies the same term to his mother's
+sister's children which he uses for his father's brother's children,
+and the use of this term, being the same as that used for a brother
+or sister, carries with it the most rigorous prohibition of marriage.
+Such a condition would not follow necessarily from a social state in
+which there were more than two social groups. If the society were
+patrilineal, the children of two brothers would necessarily belong to
+the same social group, so that the principle of exogamy would prevent
+marriage between them, but if the women of the group had married into
+different clans, there is no reason arising out of the principle of
+exogamy which should prevent marriage between their children or lead
+to the use of a term common to them and the children of brothers.
+Similarly, if the society were matrilineal, the children of two sisters
+would necessarily belong to the same social group, but this would
+not be the case with the children of brothers who might marry into
+different social groups.
+
+If, however, there be only two social groups, the case is very
+different. It would make no difference whether descent were patrilineal
+or matrilineal. In each case the children of two brothers or of two
+sisters must belong to the same moiety, while the children of brother
+and sister must belong to different moieties. The children of two
+brothers would be just as ineligible as consorts as the children of
+two sisters. Similarly, it would be a natural consequence of the dual
+organisation that the mother's brother's children should be classed
+with the father's sister's children, but this would not be necessary if
+there were more than two social groups.
+
+I should have liked, if there were time, to deal with other features
+of the classificatory system, but must be content with these examples.
+I hope to have succeeded in showing that the social causation of the
+terminology of relationship goes far beyond the mere dependence of
+features of the system on special forms of marriage, and that the
+character of the classificatory system as a whole has been determined
+by its origin in a specific form of social organisation. I propose now
+to leave the classificatory system for a moment and inquire whether
+another system of denoting and classifying relationships may not
+similarly be shown to be determined by social conditions. The system I
+shall consider is our own. Let us examine this system in its relation
+to the form of social organisation prevalent among ourselves.
+
+Just as among most peoples of rude culture the clan or other
+exogamous group is the essential unit of social organisation, so
+among ourselves this social unit is the family, using this term for
+the group consisting of a man, his wife, and their children. If we
+examine our terms of relationship, we find that those applied to
+individual persons and those used in a narrow and well-defined sense
+are just those in which the family is intimately concerned. The terms
+father, mother, husband and wife, brother and sister, are limited to
+members of the family of the speaker, and the terms father-, mother-,
+brother-, and sister-in-law to the members of the family of the wife
+or husband in the same narrowly restricted sense. Similarly, the
+terms grandfather and grandmother are limited to the parents of the
+father and mother, while the terms grandson and granddaughter are
+only used of the families of the children in the narrow sense. The
+terms uncle and aunt, nephew and niece, are used in a less restricted
+sense, but even these terms are only used of persons who stand in a
+close relation to the family of the speaker. We have only one term
+used with anything approaching the wide connotation of classificatory
+terms of relationship, and this term is used for a group of relatives
+who have as their chief feature in common that they are altogether
+outside the proper circle of the family and have no social obligations
+or privileges. They are as eligible for marriage as any other members
+of the community, and only in the very special cases I considered in
+the first lecture are they brought into any kind of legal relation.
+The dependence of our own use of terms of relationship on the social
+institution of the family seems to me so obvious that I find it
+difficult to understand how anyone who has considered these terms
+can put forward the view that the terminology of relationship is not
+socially conditioned. It seems to me that we have only to have the
+proposition stated that the classificatory system and our own are the
+outcome of the social institutions of the clan and family respectively
+for the social causation of such terminology to become conspicuous. I
+find it difficult to understand why it has not long before this been
+universally recognised. I do not think we can have a better example
+of the confusion and prejudice which have been allowed to envelop the
+subject through the unfortunate introduction of the problem of the
+primitive promiscuity or monogamy of mankind. It is not necessary to
+have an expert knowledge of the classificatory system. It is only
+necessary to consider the terms we have used almost from our cradles
+in relation to their social setting to see how the terminology of
+relationship has been determined by that setting.
+
+This brief study of our own terms of relationship leads me to speak
+about the name by which our system is generally known. Morgan called
+it the "descriptive system," and this term has been generally adopted.
+I believe, however, that it is wholly inappropriate. Those terms which
+apply to one person and to one person only may be called descriptive
+if you please, though even here the use does not seem very happy. When
+we pass beyond these, however, our terms are no whit more descriptive
+than those of the classificatory system. We speak of a grandfather,
+not of a father's father or a mother's father, only distinguishing
+grandfathers in this manner when it is necessary to supplement our
+customary terminology by more exact description. Similarly, we speak
+of a brother-in-law, and only in exceptional circumstances do we use
+forms of language which indicate whether reference is being made to
+the brother of the husband or wife or to the husband of a sister. Such
+occasional usages do not make our system descriptive, and if they be
+held to do so, the classificatory system is just as descriptive as our
+own. All those peoples who use the classificatory system are capable
+of such exact description of relationship as I have mentioned. Indeed,
+classificatory systems are often more descriptive than our own. In
+some forms of this system true descriptive terms are found in habitual
+use. Thus, in the coastal systems of Fiji the mother's brother is often
+called _ngandina_ (_ngane_, sister of a man, and _tina_, mother), this
+term being used in place of the _vungo_ already mentioned. Similar
+uses of descriptive terms occur in other parts of Melanesia. Thus, in
+Santa Cruz the father's sister is called _inwerderde_ (_inwe_, sister,
+and _derde_, father). This relative is one for whom Melanesian systems
+of relationship not infrequently possess no special designation, and
+the use of a descriptive term suggests a recent process which has come
+into action in order to denote a relative who had previously lacked any
+special designation.
+
+If "descriptive" is thus an inappropriate name for our own system,
+it will be necessary to find another, and I should like boldly to
+recognise the direct dependence of its characters on the institution of
+the family and to speak of it as the "family system."
+
+While I thus reject the term "descriptive" as a proper name for the
+terminology of relationship with which we are especially familiar, it
+does not follow that there may not be systems of denoting relationship
+which properly deserve this title. In Samoa a mode of denoting
+relatives is often used in which the great majority of the terms are
+descriptive. Thus, the only term which I could obtain for the father's
+brother's son was _atalii o le uso o le tama_, which is literally "son
+of the brother of the father," and there is some reason to suppose
+that this descriptive usage has come into vogue owing to the total
+inadequacy of the ancient Samoan system to express relationships in
+which the peoples are now interested.
+
+The wide use of such descriptive terms is also found in many systems
+of Europe, as in the Celtic languages, in those of Scandinavia, in
+Lithuanian and Esthonian.[32] A similar mode of denoting relationships
+is found in Semitic languages and among the Shilluks and Dinkas of the
+Anglo-Egyptian Sudan, and since it is from these peoples that I have
+gained my own experience of descriptive terminology, I propose to take
+them as my examples.
+
+[32] See Tables in Morgan's _Systems ..._, pp. 79-127.
+
+In the Arabic system of relationship used in Egypt many of the terms
+are descriptive; thus, the father's brother being called _'amm_, the
+father's brother's wife is _mirat 'ammi_, the father's brother's son
+_ibn 'ammi_, and the father's brother's daughter _bint 'ammi_, and
+there is a similar usage for the consorts and children of the father's
+sister and of the brother and sister of the mother.
+
+Similarly, many Shilluk terms suggest a descriptive character, the
+father's brother being _wa_, the wife of the father's brother is
+_chiwa_, the father's brother's son is _uwa_, and his daughter is
+_nyuwa_. The father's sister being _waja_, her son and daughter are
+_uwaja_ and _nyuwaja_ respectively. Similar descriptive terms are
+used by the Dinkas. The father's brother being _walen_, the father's
+brother's son is _manwalen_ and his daughter _yanwalen_; the mother's
+brother being _ninar_, the mother's brother's son is _manninar_ and his
+daughter _yanninar_.
+
+According to the main thesis of these lectures, these descriptive
+usages should own some definite social cause. The descriptive
+terminology seems to be particularly definite in the case of cousins,
+and it might be suggested that they are dependent, at any rate in part
+and in so far as Egypt is concerned, on the prevalence of marriage
+with a cousin. Marriages with the daughter of a father's brother or of
+a mother's brother are especially orthodox and popular in Egypt, and
+different degrees of preference for marriage with different classes of
+cousin would produce just such a social need as would have led to the
+definite distinction of the different kinds of cousin from one another
+by means of descriptive terms.
+
+It is more probable, however, that the use of descriptive terms in the
+languages of the Semites and of the Shilluks and Dinkas has been the
+outcome of a definite form of social organisation, viz., that in which
+the social unit is neither the family in the narrow sense, nor the
+clan, but that body of persons of common descent living in one house or
+in some other kind of close association which we call the patriarchal
+or extended family, the _Grossfamilie_ of the Germans. It is a feature
+of the Semitic and Nilotic systems, not only to distinguish the four
+chief categories of cousin, but also the four chief kinds of uncle or
+aunt, viz., the father's brother, the father's sister, the mother's
+brother and the mother's sister, all of whom are habitually classed
+together in our system, while some of them are classed with the father
+or mother in the classificatory system. The Semitic and Nilotic
+terminology is such as would follow from a form of social organisation
+in which the more intimate relationships of the family in the narrow
+sense are definitely recognised, but yet certain uncles, aunts, and
+cousins are of so much importance as to make it necessary for social
+purposes that they shall be denoted exactly. The brothers of the father
+and the unmarried sisters of the father would be of the same social
+group as the father, while the brothers and unmarried sisters of the
+mother would be of a different social group, which would account for
+their distinctive nomenclature, while within the social group it would
+be necessary to distinguish the father from his brothers. It would be
+too cumbrous to call this variety of system after the extended family,
+and I suggest that it should be called the "kindred" system.
+
+Analogy with other parts of the world suggests that all those of the
+same generation in the social group formed by the extended family may
+once have been classed together under one term, and that, as later
+there arose social motives requiring the distinction of different
+relatives so classed together, descriptive terms came into use to
+make the necessary distinctions. You must please regard this only
+as a suggestion. We need far more detailed evidence concerning the
+social status of different relatives among the peoples who use these
+descriptive terms. Such knowledge as we possess seems to point to the
+dependence of the Semitic and Sudanese terminology upon the social
+institution of the extended family, just as our own system depends
+on the social institution of the family in the narrow sense and the
+classificatory system upon the clan.
+
+If this descriptive mode of nomenclature be thus the outcome of a
+social organisation of which the essential element is the extended
+family, I need hardly point out how natural it is that we should
+find this kind of nomenclature so widely in Europe. The presence of
+this descriptive terminology in Celtic and Scandinavian languages,
+in Lithuanian and Esthonian, would be examples of the persistence of
+a form of nomenclature which had its origin in the kindred of the
+extended family. On this view we must believe that, in other languages
+of Europe, this mode of nomenclature has gradually been replaced by one
+dependent on the social institution of the family in the narrow sense.
+
+At this point I should like to sum up briefly the position to which
+our argument has taken us. I have first shown the dependence of a
+number of special features of the classificatory system of relationship
+upon special forms of marriage. Then I have shown that certain
+broad varieties of the classificatory system are to be referred to
+different forms of social organisation and to the different degrees
+in which the regulation of marriage by means of clan-exogamy has
+been replaced by a mechanism dependent upon kinship or genealogical
+relationship. From that I was led to refer the general features of
+the classificatory system to the dependence of this system upon the
+social unit of the clan as opposed to the family which I believe to
+be the basis of our own terminology of relationship. I then pointed
+to several features of the classificatory system which suggest that
+it arose in that special variety of the clan-organisation in which
+a community consists of two exogamous moieties, forming the social
+structure usually known as the dual organisation. I considered more
+fully the dependence of our own mode of denoting relatives upon the
+social institution of the family, and then a study of the descriptive
+terminology of relationship has led me to suggest that certain modes of
+denoting relationship in Egypt, the Sudan and many European countries
+may be examples of a third main variety of system of relationship
+which has arisen out of the patriarchal or extended family. We should
+thus have three main varieties of system of relationship in place of
+the two which have hitherto been recognised, having their origins
+respectively in the clan, in the family in the narrow sense, and in
+the extended or patriarchal family. These three varieties may be
+regarded as genera within each of which are species and varieties
+depending upon special social conditions which have arisen within
+each kind of social grouping, either as the result of changes within
+each form of social organisation or of transitions from one form to
+another. We know of a far larger number of such varieties within the
+classificatory system than within those due to the two forms of the
+family, and this is probably due in some measure to the fact that the
+classificatory system is still by far the most widely distributed form
+over the earth's surface. Still more important, however, is the fact
+that among the peoples who use the classificatory system there is an
+infinitely greater variety of social institution, and especially of
+forms of marriage, than exist among civilised peoples whose main social
+unit, the family, is not one which is capable of any extended range of
+variation. The result of the complete survey has been to justify my use
+of the classificatory system as the means whereby to demonstrate the
+dependence of the terminology of relationship upon social conditions.
+It is the great variability of this mode of denoting relatives which
+makes it so valuable an instrument for the study of the laws which have
+governed the history of that department of language by which mankind
+has denoted those who stand in social relations to himself.
+
+       *       *       *       *       *
+
+You may have been wondering whether I am going to say anything about
+the merits of the controversy which has till now given to systems of
+relationship their chief interest among students of sociology. I have
+so far left on one side the subjects which have been the main ground
+of controversy ever since the time of Morgan. You will have gathered
+that I regard it as a grave misfortune for the science of sociology
+that the topics of promiscuity and group-marriage should have been
+thrust by Morgan into the prominent place which they have ever since
+occupied in the theoretical study of relationship. Even now I should
+have liked to leave them on one side on the ground that the evidence
+is as yet insufficient to make them profitable subjects for such exact
+inquiry as I believe to be the proper business of sociology. Their
+very prominence, however, makes it impossible to leave them wholly
+unconsidered, but I propose to deal with them very briefly.
+
+I begin with the question whether the classificatory system of
+relationship provides us with any evidence that mankind once possessed
+a form of social organisation, or rather such an absence of social
+organisation, as would accompany a condition of general promiscuity
+in which, if one can speak of marriage at all, marriage was practised
+between all and any members of the community, including brothers and
+sisters. I can deal with this subject very briefly because I hope to
+have succeeded elsewhere in knocking away the support on which the
+whole of Morgan's own construction rested.
+
+Morgan deduced his stage of promiscuity from the Hawaiian system,
+which he supposed to be the most primitive form of classificatory
+nomenclature. In an article published in 1907 I showed[33] that it
+rather represents a late stage in the history of the more ordinary
+forms of the classificatory system. My conclusion at that time was
+based on the scanty evidence derived from the relatively few Oceanic
+systems which had then been recorded, but my work since that article
+was written has shown the absolute correctness of my earlier opinion,
+which I can now support by a far larger body of evidence than was
+available in 1907. It remains possible, however, that the Hawaiian
+system may have had its source in promiscuity, even though this
+condition be late rather than primitive, but it would be going beyond
+the scope of these lectures to deal fully with this subject here. I
+cannot forbear, however, from mentioning that Hawaiian promiscuity,
+in so far as it existed, was not the condition of the whole people,
+but only of the chiefs who alone were allowed to contract brother
+and sister marriages, while I have evidence that the avoidance of
+brother and sister in Melanesia, which has so often been regarded as
+a survival of man's early promiscuity, is capable of a very different
+explanation.[34] Our available knowledge, whether derived from features
+of the classificatory system or from other social facts, does not
+provide one shred of evidence in favour of such a condition as was put
+forward by Morgan as the earliest stage of human society, nor is there
+any evidence that such promiscuity has ever been the ruling principle
+of a people at any later stage of the history of mankind.
+
+[33] _Anthropological Essays presented to E. B. Tylor_, Oxford, 1907,
+p. 309.
+
+[34] For the full evidence on these topics see my forthcoming book _The
+History of Melanesian Society_.
+
+The subject of group-marriage is one about which I do not find it
+possible to speak so dogmatically. It would take me more than another
+lecture to deal adequately with the Melanesian evidence alone, and I
+must content myself with two remarks. Firstly, I think it desirable
+to throw aside the term group-marriage as only confusing the issue,
+and to speak rather of a state of organised sexual communism, in which
+sexual relations are recognised as orthodox between the men of one
+social group and the women of another. Secondly, the classificatory
+system has several features which would follow naturally from such a
+condition of sexual communism. I have evidence from Melanesia which
+places beyond question the former presence of such a condition, with
+features of culture which become readily explicable if they be the
+survivals of such a state of sexual communism as is suggested by the
+terminology of the classificatory system. This evidence comes from
+only one part of the world, but it is enough to convince me that we
+have no right to dismiss from our minds a state of organised sexual
+communism as a feature of the social development of mankind. The wide
+distribution of the classificatory system would suggest that this
+communism has been very general, but it need not have been universal,
+and even if the widespread existence of organised sexual communism be
+established, it would not follow that it represents the earliest stage
+in the evolution of human society. There are certain features even of
+the classificatory system itself which suggest that, if this system be
+founded in sexual communism, this communism was not primitive, but grew
+out of a condition in which only such ties of kinship were recognised
+as would result from the social institution of the family.
+
+I must be content with this brief reference to the subject. The object
+of these lectures is to demonstrate the dependence of the terminology
+of relationship upon social conditions, and the dependence of the
+classificatory system upon a condition of sexual communism is not
+now capable of demonstration. The classificatory mode of denoting
+relationship should, however, act as a suggestion and stimulus, and as
+a preventative of dogmatic statement in a part of our subject which, in
+spite of its entrancing interest, still lies only at the edge of our
+slowly spreading circle of exact knowledge.
+
+In conclusion, I should like to point out briefly some of the lessons
+of more general interest which may be learnt from the facts I have
+brought before you in these lectures. I hope that one result has been
+to convince you of the danger lying in the use of the _reductio ad
+absurdum_ argument when dealing with cultures widely different from our
+own. In the literature of the subject one often meets the adjectives
+"absurd" and "impossible" applied in some cases to social conditions
+in which the actual existence of the absurdities or impossibilities
+can be demonstrated. I may take as an example the argument of Mr. N. W.
+Thomas, which I have already mentioned, in which the classing of the
+maternal grandfather with the elder brother by the Dieri is regarded
+as reducing to an absurdity the contention that classificatory terms
+express ties of kinship. If Mr. Thomas had had a more lively faith in
+the social meaning of terms of relationship, he might have been led to
+notice that the Dieri marry the granddaughter of a brother, a fact he
+appears, in common with many other readers of Howitt, to have missed;
+one result of this marriage is to bring about just such a relationship
+as Howitt records without a man being his own great-uncle, as is
+supposed to be necessary by Mr. Thomas.
+
+Still another example may be taken from Professor Kroeber. He states
+that the classing together of the grandfather and the father-in-law
+which is found in the Dakota system, when worked out to its
+implications, would lead to the absurd conclusion that marriage with
+the mother was once customary among the Sioux. Here again, if Professor
+Kroeber had been less imbued with his belief in a purely linguistic
+and psychological chain of causation, and had been ready to entertain
+the idea that there might be a social meaning, he must have been led
+to see that the features of nomenclature in question would follow from
+other forms of marriage, and two of these, whatever their apparent
+improbability in America, cannot well be called absurd, since they are
+known to occur in other parts of the world. Following Riggs, Professor
+Kroeber does not specify which kinds of grandfather and father-in-law
+are classed together in Dakotan nomenclature, but in the full list
+given by Morgan, it is evident that one term is used for the fathers of
+both father and mother and for the fathers of both husband and wife.
+The classing of the father's father with the wife's father would be a
+natural result of marriage with the father's sister, while the common
+nomenclature for father's father and husband's father would result from
+marriage with the brother's daughter. It is not without significance
+that the features of nomenclature which would be the result of one
+or other, or of both these marriages, occur in a system which also
+bears evidence of the cross-cousin marriage, for these three forms
+of marriage occur in conjunction in one part of Melanesia, viz., the
+Torres Islands.
+
+The foregoing instance, together with many others scattered through
+these lectures, will have pointed clearly to another lesson. In
+the present state of our knowledge a working scheme or hypothesis
+has largely to be judged by its utility. A way of regarding social
+phenomena which obstructs inquiry and leads people to overlook facts
+has its disadvantages, to say the least, while a scheme or hypothesis
+which leads people to worry out and discover things which do not lie on
+the surface will establish a strong claim on our consideration, even
+if it should ultimately turn out to be only the partial truth. I will
+give only one instance to illustrate how a belief in the dependence of
+the terminology of relationship on forms of marriage might act as a
+stimulus to research.
+
+In a system from the United Provinces recorded by Mr. E. A. H. Blunt
+in the Report of the last Indian Census, one term, _bahu_, is used
+for the son's wife, for the wife, and for the mother.[35] Mr. Blunt
+puts on one side without hesitation the possibility that such common
+nomenclature can have been the result of any form of marriage, and
+ascribes it to the custom whereby a man and his wife live with the
+husband's parents, in consequence of which the son's wife, who is
+called _bahu_ by her husband, is also called _bahu_ by everyone else in
+the house. The causation of the common nomenclature which is thus put
+forward is a possible, perhaps even a probable, explanation. In such a
+case we should have a social chain of causation in which the son's wife
+is called _bahu_ because she is one of a social group bound together
+by the ties of a common habitation. It can do no harm, however, to
+bear in mind as an alternative the possibility that the terminology
+may have arisen out of a form of marriage. It is evident that the use
+of a common term for the wife and the son's wife would follow from a
+form of polyandry in which a man and his son have a wife in common. A
+further result of this form of marriage would be that the wife of the
+son, being also the wife of his father, would have the status of a
+mother.[36] We have no evidence for the presence of such a marriage in
+India, but our knowledge of the sociology of the more backward peoples
+of India is not so complete that we can afford to neglect any clue. The
+possibility suggested by the mode of using the term _bahu_ should lead
+us to look for other evidence of such a form of polyandry among the
+ruder elements of the population of India, of whose social structure
+our present knowledge is so fragmentary.
+
+[35] _Census of India_, 1911, vol. xv., p. 234.
+
+[36] In such a case the use of the term by other members of the
+household, including women, would be the result of a later extension of
+meaning.
+
+Another important result of our study of the terminology of
+relationship is that it helps us to understand the proper place of
+psychological explanation in sociology. These lectures have largely
+been devoted to the demonstration of the failure to explain features
+of the terminology of relationship on psychological grounds. If this
+demonstration has been successful, it is not because the terminology
+of relationship is anything peculiar, differing from other bodies of
+sociological facts; it is because in relationship we have to do with
+definite and clean-cut facts. The terminology of relationship is only
+a specially favourable example by means of which to show the value
+of an attitude towards, and mode of treatment of, social facts which
+hold good, though less conspicuously, throughout the whole field of
+sociology.
+
+In social, as in all other kinds of human activity, psychological
+factors must have an essential part. I have myself in these lectures
+pointed to psychological considerations as elements in the problems
+with which the sociologist has to deal. These psychological elements
+are, however, only concomitants of social processes with which it is
+possible to deal apart from their psychological aspect. It has been
+the task of these lectures to refer the social facts of relationship
+to antecedent social conditions, and I believe that this is the proper
+method of sociology. Even at the present time, however, it is possible
+to support sociological arguments by means of considerations provided
+by psychological motives, and the assistance thus rendered to sociology
+will become far greater as the science of social psychology advances.
+
+This is, however, a process very different from the interpolation of
+psychological facts as links in the chain of causation connecting
+social antecedents with social consequences. It is in no spirit of
+hostility to social psychology, but in the hope that it may help us to
+understand its proper place in the study of social institutions that
+I venture to put forward the method followed in these lectures as one
+proper to the science of sociology.[37]
+
+[37] See also "Survival in Sociology," _Sociological Review_, 1913,
+vol. vi., p. 293. I hope shortly to deal more fully with the relations
+between sociology and social psychology.
+
+It may be that there will be those who will accept my main position,
+but will urge that these lectures have been devoted to the criticism
+of an extreme position, the position taken up by Professor Kroeber.
+They may say that they have never believed in the purely psychological
+causation of the terminology of relationship. In reply to such an
+attitude I can only express my conviction that the paper of Professor
+Kroeber is only the explicit and clear statement of an attitude which
+is implicit in the work of nearly all, if not all, the opponents of
+Morgan since McLennan. Whether they have themselves recognised it
+or not, I believe that it has been this underlying attitude towards
+sociological problems which has prevented them from seeing what is
+good in Morgan's work, from sifting out the chaff from the wheat of
+his argument, and from recognising how great is the importance to the
+science of sociology of the body of facts which Morgan was the first to
+collect and study. I feel that we owe a debt of gratitude to Professor
+Kroeber for having brought the matter into the open and for having
+presented, as a clear issue, a fundamental problem of the methods of
+sociology.
+
+Lastly, I should like to point out how rigorous and exact has been the
+process of the determination of the nomenclature of relationship by
+social conditions which has been demonstrated in these lectures. We
+have here a case in which the principle of determinism applies with a
+rigour and definiteness equal to that of any of the exact sciences.
+According to my scheme, not only has the general character of systems
+of relationship been strictly determined by social conditions, but
+every detail of these systems has also been so determined. Even so
+small and apparently insignificant a feature as the classing of the
+sister-in-law with the sister has been found to lead back to a definite
+social condition arising out of the regulation of marriage and of
+sexual relations. If sociology is to become a science fit to rank
+with other sciences, it must, like them, be rigorously deterministic.
+Social phenomena do not come into being of themselves. The proposition
+that we class two relatives together in nomenclature because the
+relationships are similar is, if it stand alone, nothing more than a
+form of words. It is incumbent on those who believe in the importance
+of the psychological similarity of social phenomena to show in what
+the supposed similarity consists and how it has come about--in other
+words, how it has been determined. It has been my chief object in these
+lectures to show that, in so far as such similarities exist in the case
+of relationship, they have been determined by social conditions. Only
+by attention to this aim throughout the whole field of social phenomena
+can we hope to rid sociology of the reproach, so often heard, that it
+is not a science; only thus can we refute those who go still further
+and claim that it can never be a science.
+
+
+
+
+INDEX
+
+
+  "Absurd" in sociology, 32, 87.
+
+  America, North, 10, 18, 49, 55.
+
+  Anaiteum, 22.
+
+  Aniwa, 22.
+
+  Assiniboin, 51.
+
+  Australia, 11, 32.
+
+  Avoidance, 85.
+
+
+  Banks Is., 12, 16, 28, 42, 53, 61, 68.
+
+  Bellamy, R. L., 56.
+
+  Blunt, E. A. H., 90.
+
+  Bougainville I., 40.
+
+  Brother-in-law, functions of, 12.
+
+  Buin, 40.
+
+
+  Canarese, 47.
+
+  Celtic terms, 78, 81.
+
+  Cherokees, 53.
+
+  Chiefs, 85.
+
+  Choctas, 53.
+
+  Christianity, 30.
+
+  Clan, 67, 71, 74.
+
+  Classes, matrimonial, 32, 39.
+
+  Classificatory relationship, 2, 4, 19, 83.
+
+  Codrington, Dr., 28, 30, 68.
+
+  Communism in property, 12;
+    sexual, 62, 86.
+
+  Concomitant variations, method of, 70.
+
+  "Creek" Indians, 53.
+
+  Crees, 50, 55.
+
+  Cross-cousins, 20, 28;
+    _see_ marriage.
+
+  "Crow" Indians, 53.
+
+
+  Dakotas, 51, 88.
+
+  Descent, 34, 39, 73.
+
+  Descriptive system, 76;
+    terms, 77, 81.
+
+  Determinism, 7, 93.
+
+  Dieri, 32, 37, 88.
+
+  Dinkas, 78.
+
+  Dorsey, J. O., 51.
+
+  Dual organisation, 32, 34, 58, 67, 72, 82.
+
+
+  Eddystone I., 68, 70.
+
+  Egidi, Father, 16.
+
+  Egypt, 78, 79.
+
+  English terms of relationship, 13, 74.
+
+  Eromanga, 22.
+
+  Esthonia, 78, 81.
+
+  Exchange of brothers and sisters, 43.
+
+  Exogamy, 68, 72.
+
+
+  Family, 74, 77, 87;
+    extended, 79, 81.
+
+  Father's sister, functions of, 16.
+
+  Field, Rev. J. T., 57.
+
+  Fiji, 22, 31, 39, 77.
+
+  Fison, Rev. L., 26.
+
+  Florida, 45, 69.
+
+  Freire-Marreco, Miss B., 53, 55.
+
+  Functions of relatives, 6, 11, 12, 15.
+
+
+  Gait, E. A., 47.
+
+  Genealogical method, 23, 31.
+
+  Genealogical relationship, 68, 70.
+
+  Gillen, F. J., 11.
+
+  Gonds, 26.
+
+  Group-marriage, 6, 86.
+
+  Guadalcanar, 23, 45.
+
+
+  Haidahs, 54.
+
+  Hawaiian Is., 15, 66, 68;
+    system, 66, 84.
+
+  Head, sanctity of, 12.
+
+  Hopi Indians, 55.
+
+  Howitt, A. W., 11, 88.
+
+
+  India, 18, 26, 47, 90.
+
+
+  Kindred, 80.
+
+  Kinship, 1, 67, 82.
+
+  Kohler, J., 8, 19.
+
+  Kroeber, A. L., 9, 25, 52, 60, 62, 64, 88, 93.
+
+  Kuni, 16.
+
+
+  Lithuania, 78, 81.
+
+
+  McLennan, J. F., 6, 17.
+
+  Malayalam, 47.
+
+  "Malayan" system, 65, 68.
+
+  Maori, 66.
+
+  Marriage, 1, 60;
+    between brother and sister, 85;
+    by exchange, 43;
+    group-, 6, 86;
+    regulation of, 67;
+    with brother's daughter, 89;
+    with brother's granddaughter, 34, 37, 56;
+    with cousin, 79;
+    with cross-cousin, 20, 39, 43, 47, 49, 54;
+    with deceased wife's sister, 65;
+    with father's sister, 89;
+    with wife of father's father, 40, 57;
+    with wife of mother's brother, 30, 33, 52.
+
+  Massim, 56.
+
+  Mbau, 22.
+
+  Mekeo, 16, 70.
+
+  Melanesia, 14, 19, 28, 45, 52, 61, 66, 77, 85, 89.
+
+  Morgan, Lewis, 4, 10, 18, 26, 47, 50, 65, 84, 93.
+
+  Mother's brother, functions of, 15.
+
+
+  New Hebrides, 22, 31, 68.
+
+  New Guinea, 16, 56, 69.
+
+  Niue, 15.
+
+
+  Pantutun, John, 33, 37.
+
+  Pawnees, 53, 54.
+
+  Pedigrees, 31, 70.
+
+  Pentecost I., 31.
+
+  Polyandry, 7, 90.
+
+  Polynesia, 15, 61, 66.
+
+  Prediction, 26.
+
+  Promiscuity, 6, 75, 84.
+
+  Psychology, 10, 17, 24, 29, 38, 52, 62, 63, 66, 91, 94.
+
+  Pueblo Indians, 53.
+
+
+  "Red Knives" Indians, 49.
+
+  Riggs, Rev. S. R., 51, 89.
+
+  Roth, W., 11.
+
+
+  Salutations, 7, 10.
+
+  Samoa, 77.
+
+  San Cristoval, 46.
+
+  Santa Cruz, 15, 68, 77.
+
+  Scandinavia, 78, 81.
+
+  Seligmann, C. G., 56.
+
+  Semitic terms, 78, 81.
+
+  Shilluks, 78.
+
+  Sioux, 53, 54, 88.
+
+  Sladen Trust, 14.
+
+  Sociology, 10, 26, 70, 84, 92, 94.
+
+  Solomon Is., 15, 23, 45, 67, 68.
+
+  Spencer, B., 11.
+
+  Sudan, 78, 81.
+
+  Survival, 39, 43, 46, 48, 59, 86, 92.
+
+  Swanton, J. R., 55.
+
+
+  Tamil, 47.
+
+  Tanna, 22.
+
+  Telegu, 47.
+
+  Tewa Indians, 53.
+
+  Thomas, N. W., 32, 88.
+
+  Thurnwald, R., 40.
+
+  Tikopia, 15, 67.
+
+  Todas, 49.
+
+  Tonga, 15, 67.
+
+  Torres Is., 89.
+
+  Torres Straits, 11, 44.
+
+  Trobriand Is., 55.
+
+  Tubetube, 57.
+
+
+  Wagawaga, 56, 58.
+
+  Wedau, 58.
+
+  Widow, 12, 30, 41.
+
+
+  "Yellow Knife" Indians, 49.
+
+  Ysabel, 46.
+
+
+GARDEN CITY PRESS LIMITED, PRINTERS, LETCHWORTH.
+
+
+
+
+LIST OF STUDIES IN ECONOMICS & POLITICAL SCIENCE.
+
+_A Series of Monographs by Lecturers and Students connected with the
+London School of Economics and Political Science._
+
+
+EDITED BY THE
+
+DIRECTOR OF THE LONDON SCHOOL OF ECONOMICS AND POLITICAL SCIENCE.
+
+~1. The History of Local Rates in England.~ The substance of five
+lectures given at the School in November and December, 1895. By EDWIN
+CANNAN, M.A., LL.D. 1896; second, enlarged edition, 1912; xv and 215
+pp., Crown 8vo, cloth. 3s. 6d. net.
+
+  _P. S. King and Son._
+
+~2. Select Documents Illustrating the History of Trade Unionism.~
+I.--THE TAILORING TRADE. By F. W. GALTON. With a Preface by SIDNEY
+WEBB, LL.B. 1896; 242 pp., Cr. 8vo, cloth. 5s.
+
+  _P. S. King and Son._
+
+~3. German Social Democracy.~ Six lectures delivered at the School in
+February and March, 1896. By the Hon. BERTRAND RUSSELL, B.A., late
+Fellow of Trinity College, Cambridge. With an Appendix on Social
+Democracy and the Woman Question in Germany. By ALYS RUSSELL, B.A.
+1896; 204 pp., Cr. 8vo, cloth. 3s. 6d.
+
+  _P. S. King and Son._
+
+~4. The Referendum in Switzerland.~ By M. SIMON DEPLOIGE, University of
+Louvain. With a Letter on the Referendum in Belgium by M. J. VAN DEN
+HEUVEL, Professor of International Law in the University of Louvain.
+Translated by C. P. TREVELYAN, M.A., Trinity College, Cambridge, and
+edited with Notes, Introduction, Bibliography, and Appendices, by
+LILIAN TOMN (Mrs. Knowles), of Girton College, Cambridge, Research
+Student at the School. 1898; x and 344 pp., Cr. 8vo, cloth, 7s. 6d.
+
+  _P. S. King and Son._
+
+~5. The Economic Policy of Colbert.~ By A. J. SARGENT, M.A., Senior
+Hulme Exhibitioner, Brasenose College, Oxford; and Whately Prizeman,
+1897, Trinity College, Dublin. 1899; viii and 138 pp., Cr. 8vo, cloth.
+2s. 6d.
+
+  _P. S. King and Son._
+
+~6. Local Variations in Wages.~ (The Adam Smith Prize, Cambridge
+University, 1898.) By F. W. LAWRENCE, M.A., Fellow of Trinity College,
+Cambridge. 1899; viii and 90 pp., with Index and 18 Maps and Diagrams.
+Quarto, 11 in. by 8-1/2 in., cloth. 8s. 6d.
+
+  _Longmans, Green and Co._
+
+~7. The Receipt Roll of the Exchequer for Michaelmas Term of the
+Thirty-first Year of Henry II. (1185).~ A unique fragment transcribed
+and edited by the Class in Pal�ography and Diplomatic, under the
+supervision of the Lecturer, HUBERT HALL, F.S.A., of H.M. Public Record
+Office. With thirty-one Facsimile Plates in Collotype and Parallel
+readings from the contemporary Pipe Roll. 1899; vii and 37 pp.; Folio,
+15-1/2 in. by 11-1/2 in., in green cloth; 3 Copies left. Apply to the
+Director of the London School of Economics.
+
+~8. Elements of Statistics.~ By ARTHUR L. BOWLEY, M.A., Sc.D., F.S.S.,
+Cobden and Adam Smith Prizeman, Cambridge; Guy Silver Medallist of the
+Royal Statistical Society; Newmarch Lecturer, 1897-98. 500 pp., and 40
+Diagrams, Demy 8vo, cloth. 1901; Third edition, 1907; viii and 336 pp.
+10s. 6d. net.
+
+  _P. S. King and Son._
+
+~9. The Place of Compensation in Temperance Reform.~ By C. P. SANGER,
+M.A., late Fellow of Trinity College, Cambridge; Barrister-at-Law.
+1901; viii and 136 pp., Crown 8vo, cloth, 2s. 6d. net.
+
+  _P. S. King and Son._
+
+~10. A History of Factory Legislation.~ By B. L. HUTCHINS and A.
+HARRISON (Mrs. Spencer), B.A., D.Sc. (Econ.), London. With a Preface
+by SIDNEY WEBB, LL.B. 1903; new and revised edition, 1911, xvi and 298
+pp., Demy 8vo, cloth. 6s. net.
+
+  _P. S. King and Son._
+
+~11. The Pipe Roll of the Exchequer of the See of Winchester for
+the Fourth Year of the Episcopate of Peter Des Roches (1207).~
+Transcribed and edited from the original Roll in the possession of
+the Ecclesiastical Commissioners by the Class in Pal�ography and
+Diplomatic, under the supervision of the Lecturer, HUBERT HALL, F.S.A.,
+of H.M. Public Record Office. With a frontispiece giving a Facsimile
+of the Roll. 1903; xlviii and 100 pp., Folio, 13-1/2 in. by 8-1/2 in.,
+green cloth. 15s. net.
+
+  _P. S. King and Son._
+
+~12. Self-Government in Canada and How it was Achieved. The Story of
+Lord Durham's Report.~ By F. BRADSHAW, B.A., D.Sc. (Econ.), London;
+Senior Hulme Exhibitioner, Brasenose College, Oxford. 1903; 414 pp.,
+Demy 8vo, cloth. 3s. 6d. net.
+
+  _P. S. King and Son._
+
+~13. History of the Commercial and Financial Relations Between England
+and Ireland from the Period of the Restoration.~ By ALICE EFFIE MURRAY
+(Mrs. Radice), D.Sc. (Econ.), former Student at Girton College,
+Cambridge; Research Student of the London School of Economics and
+Political Science. 1903; 486 pp., Demy 8vo, cloth. 3s. 6d. net.
+
+  _P. S. King and Son._
+
+~14. The English Peasantry and the Enclosure of Common Fields.~ By
+GILBERT SLATER, M.A., St. John's College, Cambridge; D.Sc. (Econ.),
+London. 1906; 337 pp., Demy 8vo, cloth. 10s. 6d. net.
+
+  _Constable and Co._
+
+~15. A History of the English Agricultural Labourer.~ By DR. W.
+HASBACH, Professor of Economics in the University of Kiel. Translated
+from the Second Edition (1908), by RUTH KENYON. Introduction by SIDNEY
+WEBB, LL.B. 1908; xvi and 470 pp., Demy 8vo, cloth. 7s. 6d. net.
+
+  _P. S. King and Son._
+
+~16. A Colonial Autocracy: New South Wales under Governor Macquarie
+(1810-1821).~ By MARION PHILLIPS, B.A., Melbourne, D.Sc. (Econ.),
+London. 1909; xxiii and 336 pp., Demy 8vo, cloth. 10s. 6d. net.
+
+  _P. S. King and Son._
+
+~17. India and the Tariff Problem.~ By H. B. LEES SMITH, M.A., M.P.
+1909; 120 pp., Crown 8vo, cloth. 3s. 6d. net.
+
+  _Constable and Co._
+
+~18. Practical Notes on the Management of Elections.~ Three Lectures
+delivered at the School in November, 1909, by ELLIS T. POWELL, LL.B.,
+B.Sc. (Econ.), Fellow of the Royal Historical and Royal Economic
+Societies, of the Inner Temple, Barrister-at-Law. 1909; 52 pp., 8vo,
+paper. 1s. 6d. net.
+
+  _P. S. King and Son._
+
+~19. The Political Development of Japan.~ By G. E. UYEHARA, B.A.,
+Washington, D.Sc. (Econ.), London. xxiv and 296 pp., Demy 8vo, cloth.
+1910. 8s. 6d. net.
+
+  _Constable and Co._
+
+~20. National and Local Finance.~ By J. WATSON GRICE, D.Sc. (Econ.),
+London. Preface by SIDNEY WEBB, LL.B. 1910; 428 pp., Demy 8vo, cloth.
+10s. 6d. net.
+
+  _P. S. King and Son._
+
+~21. An Example of Communal Currency.~ Facts about the Guernsey
+Market-house. By J. THEODORE HARRIS, B.A., with an Introduction by
+SIDNEY WEBB, LL.B., 1911; xiv and 62 pp., Crown 8vo, cloth, 1s. 6d.
+net; paper, 1s. net.
+
+  _P. S. King and Son._
+
+~22. Municipal Origins.~ History of Private Bill Legislation. By F. H.
+SPENCER, LL.B., D.Sc. (Econ.); with a Preface by Sir EDWARD CLARKE,
+K.C. 1911; xi and 333 pp., Demy 8vo, cloth. 10s. 6d. net.
+
+  _Constable and Co._
+
+~23. Seasonal Trades.~ By Various Authors. With an Introduction by
+SIDNEY WEBB. Edited by SIDNEY WEBB, LL.B., and ARNOLD FREEMAN, M.A.
+1912; xi and 410 pp., Demy 8vo, cloth. 7s. 6d. net.
+
+  _Constable and Co._
+
+~24. Grants in Aid.~ A Criticism and a Proposal. By SIDNEY WEBB, LL.B.
+1911; vii and 135 pp., Demy 8vo, cloth. 5s. net.
+
+  _Longmans, Green and Co._
+
+~25. The Panama Canal: A Study in International Law.~ By H. ARIAS,
+B.A., LL.D. 1911; xiv and 188 pp., 2 maps, bibliography, Demy 8vo,
+cloth. 10s. 6d. net.
+
+  _P. S. King and Co._
+
+~26. Combination Among Railway Companies.~ By W. A. ROBERTSON, B.A.
+1912; 105 pp., Demy 8vo, cloth. 1s. 6d. net; paper, 1s. net.
+
+  _Constable and Co._
+
+~27. War and the Private Citizen~: Studies in International Law. By A.
+PEARCE HIGGINS, M.A., LL.D.; with Introductory Note by the Rt. Hon.
+ARTHUR COHEN, K.C. 1912; xvi and 200 pp., Demy 8vo, cloth. 5s. net.
+
+  _P. S. King and Son._
+
+~28. Life in an English Village~: An Economic and Historical Survey of
+the Parish of Corsley, in Wiltshire. By M. F. DAVIES. 1909; xiii and
+319 pp., illustrations, bibliography, Demy 8vo, cloth. 10s. 6d. net.
+
+  _T. Fisher Unwin._
+
+~29. English Apprenticeship and Child Labour~: A History. By O. JOCELYN
+DUNLOP, D.Sc. (Econ.), London; with a Supplementary Section on the
+Modern Problem of Juvenile Labour, by the Author and R. D. DENMAN, M.P.
+1912; pp. 390, bibliography, Demy 8vo, cloth. 10s. 6d. net.
+
+  _T. Fisher Unwin._
+
+~30. Origin of Property and the Formation of the Village Community.~ By
+J. ST. LEWINSKI, D.Ec.Sc., Brussels. 1913; xi. and 71 pp., Demy 8vo,
+cloth. 3s. 6d. net.
+
+  _Constable and Co._
+
+~31. The Modern Tendency toward Industrial Combination in some Spheres
+of British Industry.~ By G. R. CARTER, M.A. 1913; xi and 386 pp., Demy
+8vo, cloth. 6s. net.
+
+  _Constable and Co._
+
+~32. Tariffs at Work~: An outline of Practical Tariff Administration.
+By JOHN HEDLEY HIGGINSON, B.Sc. (Econ.), Mitchell Student of the
+University of London; Cobden Prizeman and Silver Medallist. 1913; 150
+pp., Crown 8vo, cloth. 2s. net.
+
+  _P. S. King and Son._
+
+~33. English Taxation, 1640-1799.~ An Essay on Policy and Opinion. By
+WILLIAM KENNEDY, M.A., Shaw Research Student at the London School of
+Economics and Political Science. 1913; 200 pp., Demy 8vo. 7s. 6d. net.
+
+  _G. Bell and Sons._
+
+~34. Emigration from the United Kingdom to North America, 1763-1912.~
+By STANLEY C. JOHNSON, M.A., Cambridge. 1913; xvi and 387 pp., Demy
+8vo, cloth. 6s. net.
+
+  _G. Routledge and Sons._
+
+~35. The Financing of the Hundred Years' War from 1337 to 1360.~ By
+SCHUYLER B. TERRY. 1914; xvi and 199 pp., Demy 8vo, cloth. 6s. net.
+
+  _Constable and Co._
+
+~36. Social Organisation and Kinship.~ By W. H. R. RIVERS, M.D.,
+F.R.S., Fellow of St. John's College, Cambridge. 1913; viii and 96 pp.,
+Demy 8vo, cloth. 2s. 6d. net.
+
+  _Constable and Co._
+
+
+_Series of Bibliographies by Students of the School._
+
+~1. A Bibliography of Unemployment and the Unemployed.~ By F. ISABEL
+TAYLOR, B.Sc. (Econ.), London. Preface by SIDNEY WEBB, LL.B. 1909; xix
+and 71 pp., Demy 8vo, cloth, 2s. net; paper, 1s. 6d. net.
+
+  _P. S. King and Son._
+
+~2. Two Select Bibliographies of Medi�val Historical Study.~ By
+MARGARET F. MOORE, M.A.; with Preface and Appendix by HUBERT HALL,
+F.S.A. 1912; pp. 185, Demy 8vo, cloth. 5s. net.
+
+  _Constable and Co._
+
+~3. Bibliography of Roads.~ By DOROTHY BALLEN: An enlarged and revised
+edition of a similar work compiled by Mr. and Mrs. Sidney Webb in 1906.
+With an introduction by Sir George Gibb. 1914; xviii. and 281 pp., Demy
+8vo, cloth. 15s. net.
+
+  _P. S. King and Son._
+
+~4. A Select Bibliography for the Study, Sources, and Literature of
+English Medi�val Economic History.~ Edited by HUBERT HALL, F.S.A. 1913;
+xiii and 350 pp., Demy 8vo, cloth. 6s. net.
+
+  _P. S. King and Son._
+
+
+_Series of Geographical Studies._
+
+~1. The Reigate Sheet of the One-inch Ordnance Survey.~ A Study in the
+Geography of the Surrey Hills. By ELLEN SMITH. Introduction by H. J.
+Mackinder, M.A., M.P. 1910; xix and 110 pp., 6 maps, 23 illustrations.
+Crown 8vo, cloth. 5s. net.
+
+  _A. and C. Black._
+
+~2. The Highlands of South-West Surrey.~ A Geographical Study in
+Sand and Clay. By E. C. MATTHEWS. 1911; viii and 124 pp., 7 maps, 8
+illustrations, 8vo, cloth. 5s. net.
+
+  _A. and C. Black._
+
+
+_Series of Contour Maps of Critical Areas._
+
+~1. The Hudson-Mohawk Gap.~ Prepared by the Diagram Company from a map
+by B. B. Dickinson. 1913; 1 sheet 18 in. by 22-1/2 in. Scale 20 miles
+to 1 inch. 6d. net; post free, folded 7d., rolled 9d.
+
+  _Sifton, Praed and Co._
+
+
+
+
+Transcriber's Note
+
+
+The following apparent errors have been corrected:
+
+p. 8 (note) "Rechtswiss" changed to "Rechtswiss."
+
+p. 20 "now becomes" changed to "now become"
+
+Advertisement "contemproary" changed to "contemporary"
+
+Advertisement "was Achieved" changed to "was Achieved."
+
+Advertisement "Commerical and Financial" changed to "Commercial and
+Financial"
+
+
+
+
+
+
+End of Project Gutenberg's Kinship and Social Organisation, by W. H. R. Rivers
+
+*** END OF THIS PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK KINSHIP AND SOCIAL ORGANISATION ***
+
+***** This file should be named 44728-8.txt or 44728-8.zip *****
+This and all associated files of various formats will be found in:
+        http://www.gutenberg.org/4/4/7/2/44728/
+
+Produced by Henry Flower and the Online Distributed
+Proofreading Team at http://www.pgdp.net (This file was
+produced from images generously made available by The
+Internet Archive/Canadian Libraries)
+
+
+Updated editions will replace the previous one--the old editions
+will be renamed.
+
+Creating the works from public domain print editions means that no
+one owns a United States copyright in these works, so the Foundation
+(and you!) can copy and distribute it in the United States without
+permission and without paying copyright royalties.  Special rules,
+set forth in the General Terms of Use part of this license, apply to
+copying and distributing Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works to
+protect the PROJECT GUTENBERG-tm concept and trademark.  Project
+Gutenberg is a registered trademark, and may not be used if you
+charge for the eBooks, unless you receive specific permission.  If you
+do not charge anything for copies of this eBook, complying with the
+rules is very easy.  You may use this eBook for nearly any purpose
+such as creation of derivative works, reports, performances and
+research.  They may be modified and printed and given away--you may do
+practically ANYTHING with public domain eBooks.  Redistribution is
+subject to the trademark license, especially commercial
+redistribution.
+
+
+
+*** START: FULL LICENSE ***
+
+THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG LICENSE
+PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU DISTRIBUTE OR USE THIS WORK
+
+To protect the Project Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting the free
+distribution of electronic works, by using or distributing this work
+(or any other work associated in any way with the phrase "Project
+Gutenberg"), you agree to comply with all the terms of the Full Project
+Gutenberg-tm License (available with this file or online at
+http://gutenberg.org/license).
+
+
+Section 1.  General Terms of Use and Redistributing Project Gutenberg-tm
+electronic works
+
+1.A.  By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg-tm
+electronic work, you indicate that you have read, understand, agree to
+and accept all the terms of this license and intellectual property
+(trademark/copyright) agreement.  If you do not agree to abide by all
+the terms of this agreement, you must cease using and return or destroy
+all copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in your possession.
+If you paid a fee for obtaining a copy of or access to a Project
+Gutenberg-tm electronic work and you do not agree to be bound by the
+terms of this agreement, you may obtain a refund from the person or
+entity to whom you paid the fee as set forth in paragraph 1.E.8.
+
+1.B.  "Project Gutenberg" is a registered trademark.  It may only be
+used on or associated in any way with an electronic work by people who
+agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement.  There are a few
+things that you can do with most Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works
+even without complying with the full terms of this agreement.  See
+paragraph 1.C below.  There are a lot of things you can do with Project
+Gutenberg-tm electronic works if you follow the terms of this agreement
+and help preserve free future access to Project Gutenberg-tm electronic
+works.  See paragraph 1.E below.
+
+1.C.  The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation ("the Foundation"
+or PGLAF), owns a compilation copyright in the collection of Project
+Gutenberg-tm electronic works.  Nearly all the individual works in the
+collection are in the public domain in the United States.  If an
+individual work is in the public domain in the United States and you are
+located in the United States, we do not claim a right to prevent you from
+copying, distributing, performing, displaying or creating derivative
+works based on the work as long as all references to Project Gutenberg
+are removed.  Of course, we hope that you will support the Project
+Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting free access to electronic works by
+freely sharing Project Gutenberg-tm works in compliance with the terms of
+this agreement for keeping the Project Gutenberg-tm name associated with
+the work.  You can easily comply with the terms of this agreement by
+keeping this work in the same format with its attached full Project
+Gutenberg-tm License when you share it without charge with others.
+
+1.D.  The copyright laws of the place where you are located also govern
+what you can do with this work.  Copyright laws in most countries are in
+a constant state of change.  If you are outside the United States, check
+the laws of your country in addition to the terms of this agreement
+before downloading, copying, displaying, performing, distributing or
+creating derivative works based on this work or any other Project
+Gutenberg-tm work.  The Foundation makes no representations concerning
+the copyright status of any work in any country outside the United
+States.
+
+1.E.  Unless you have removed all references to Project Gutenberg:
+
+1.E.1.  The following sentence, with active links to, or other immediate
+access to, the full Project Gutenberg-tm License must appear prominently
+whenever any copy of a Project Gutenberg-tm work (any work on which the
+phrase "Project Gutenberg" appears, or with which the phrase "Project
+Gutenberg" is associated) is accessed, displayed, performed, viewed,
+copied or distributed:
+
+This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere at no cost and with
+almost no restrictions whatsoever.  You may copy it, give it away or
+re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included
+with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org/license
+
+1.E.2.  If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is derived
+from the public domain (does not contain a notice indicating that it is
+posted with permission of the copyright holder), the work can be copied
+and distributed to anyone in the United States without paying any fees
+or charges.  If you are redistributing or providing access to a work
+with the phrase "Project Gutenberg" associated with or appearing on the
+work, you must comply either with the requirements of paragraphs 1.E.1
+through 1.E.7 or obtain permission for the use of the work and the
+Project Gutenberg-tm trademark as set forth in paragraphs 1.E.8 or
+1.E.9.
+
+1.E.3.  If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is posted
+with the permission of the copyright holder, your use and distribution
+must comply with both paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 and any additional
+terms imposed by the copyright holder.  Additional terms will be linked
+to the Project Gutenberg-tm License for all works posted with the
+permission of the copyright holder found at the beginning of this work.
+
+1.E.4.  Do not unlink or detach or remove the full Project Gutenberg-tm
+License terms from this work, or any files containing a part of this
+work or any other work associated with Project Gutenberg-tm.
+
+1.E.5.  Do not copy, display, perform, distribute or redistribute this
+electronic work, or any part of this electronic work, without
+prominently displaying the sentence set forth in paragraph 1.E.1 with
+active links or immediate access to the full terms of the Project
+Gutenberg-tm License.
+
+1.E.6.  You may convert to and distribute this work in any binary,
+compressed, marked up, nonproprietary or proprietary form, including any
+word processing or hypertext form.  However, if you provide access to or
+distribute copies of a Project Gutenberg-tm work in a format other than
+"Plain Vanilla ASCII" or other format used in the official version
+posted on the official Project Gutenberg-tm web site (www.gutenberg.org),
+you must, at no additional cost, fee or expense to the user, provide a
+copy, a means of exporting a copy, or a means of obtaining a copy upon
+request, of the work in its original "Plain Vanilla ASCII" or other
+form.  Any alternate format must include the full Project Gutenberg-tm
+License as specified in paragraph 1.E.1.
+
+1.E.7.  Do not charge a fee for access to, viewing, displaying,
+performing, copying or distributing any Project Gutenberg-tm works
+unless you comply with paragraph 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.
+
+1.E.8.  You may charge a reasonable fee for copies of or providing
+access to or distributing Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works provided
+that
+
+- You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you derive from
+     the use of Project Gutenberg-tm works calculated using the method
+     you already use to calculate your applicable taxes.  The fee is
+     owed to the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm trademark, but he
+     has agreed to donate royalties under this paragraph to the
+     Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation.  Royalty payments
+     must be paid within 60 days following each date on which you
+     prepare (or are legally required to prepare) your periodic tax
+     returns.  Royalty payments should be clearly marked as such and
+     sent to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation at the
+     address specified in Section 4, "Information about donations to
+     the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation."
+
+- You provide a full refund of any money paid by a user who notifies
+     you in writing (or by e-mail) within 30 days of receipt that s/he
+     does not agree to the terms of the full Project Gutenberg-tm
+     License.  You must require such a user to return or
+     destroy all copies of the works possessed in a physical medium
+     and discontinue all use of and all access to other copies of
+     Project Gutenberg-tm works.
+
+- You provide, in accordance with paragraph 1.F.3, a full refund of any
+     money paid for a work or a replacement copy, if a defect in the
+     electronic work is discovered and reported to you within 90 days
+     of receipt of the work.
+
+- You comply with all other terms of this agreement for free
+     distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm works.
+
+1.E.9.  If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a Project Gutenberg-tm
+electronic work or group of works on different terms than are set
+forth in this agreement, you must obtain permission in writing from
+both the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation and Michael
+Hart, the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm trademark.  Contact the
+Foundation as set forth in Section 3 below.
+
+1.F.
+
+1.F.1.  Project Gutenberg volunteers and employees expend considerable
+effort to identify, do copyright research on, transcribe and proofread
+public domain works in creating the Project Gutenberg-tm
+collection.  Despite these efforts, Project Gutenberg-tm electronic
+works, and the medium on which they may be stored, may contain
+"Defects," such as, but not limited to, incomplete, inaccurate or
+corrupt data, transcription errors, a copyright or other intellectual
+property infringement, a defective or damaged disk or other medium, a
+computer virus, or computer codes that damage or cannot be read by
+your equipment.
+
+1.F.2.  LIMITED WARRANTY, DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES - Except for the "Right
+of Replacement or Refund" described in paragraph 1.F.3, the Project
+Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the owner of the Project
+Gutenberg-tm trademark, and any other party distributing a Project
+Gutenberg-tm electronic work under this agreement, disclaim all
+liability to you for damages, costs and expenses, including legal
+fees.  YOU AGREE THAT YOU HAVE NO REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE, STRICT
+LIABILITY, BREACH OF WARRANTY OR BREACH OF CONTRACT EXCEPT THOSE
+PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH 1.F.3.  YOU AGREE THAT THE FOUNDATION, THE
+TRADEMARK OWNER, AND ANY DISTRIBUTOR UNDER THIS AGREEMENT WILL NOT BE
+LIABLE TO YOU FOR ACTUAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE OR
+INCIDENTAL DAMAGES EVEN IF YOU GIVE NOTICE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH
+DAMAGE.
+
+1.F.3.  LIMITED RIGHT OF REPLACEMENT OR REFUND - If you discover a
+defect in this electronic work within 90 days of receiving it, you can
+receive a refund of the money (if any) you paid for it by sending a
+written explanation to the person you received the work from.  If you
+received the work on a physical medium, you must return the medium with
+your written explanation.  The person or entity that provided you with
+the defective work may elect to provide a replacement copy in lieu of a
+refund.  If you received the work electronically, the person or entity
+providing it to you may choose to give you a second opportunity to
+receive the work electronically in lieu of a refund.  If the second copy
+is also defective, you may demand a refund in writing without further
+opportunities to fix the problem.
+
+1.F.4.  Except for the limited right of replacement or refund set forth
+in paragraph 1.F.3, this work is provided to you 'AS-IS' WITH NO OTHER
+WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO
+WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PURPOSE.
+
+1.F.5.  Some states do not allow disclaimers of certain implied
+warranties or the exclusion or limitation of certain types of damages.
+If any disclaimer or limitation set forth in this agreement violates the
+law of the state applicable to this agreement, the agreement shall be
+interpreted to make the maximum disclaimer or limitation permitted by
+the applicable state law.  The invalidity or unenforceability of any
+provision of this agreement shall not void the remaining provisions.
+
+1.F.6.  INDEMNITY - You agree to indemnify and hold the Foundation, the
+trademark owner, any agent or employee of the Foundation, anyone
+providing copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in accordance
+with this agreement, and any volunteers associated with the production,
+promotion and distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works,
+harmless from all liability, costs and expenses, including legal fees,
+that arise directly or indirectly from any of the following which you do
+or cause to occur: (a) distribution of this or any Project Gutenberg-tm
+work, (b) alteration, modification, or additions or deletions to any
+Project Gutenberg-tm work, and (c) any Defect you cause.
+
+
+Section  2.  Information about the Mission of Project Gutenberg-tm
+
+Project Gutenberg-tm is synonymous with the free distribution of
+electronic works in formats readable by the widest variety of computers
+including obsolete, old, middle-aged and new computers.  It exists
+because of the efforts of hundreds of volunteers and donations from
+people in all walks of life.
+
+Volunteers and financial support to provide volunteers with the
+assistance they need, are critical to reaching Project Gutenberg-tm's
+goals and ensuring that the Project Gutenberg-tm collection will
+remain freely available for generations to come.  In 2001, the Project
+Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation was created to provide a secure
+and permanent future for Project Gutenberg-tm and future generations.
+To learn more about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation
+and how your efforts and donations can help, see Sections 3 and 4
+and the Foundation web page at http://www.pglaf.org.
+
+
+Section 3.  Information about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive
+Foundation
+
+The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation is a non profit
+501(c)(3) educational corporation organized under the laws of the
+state of Mississippi and granted tax exempt status by the Internal
+Revenue Service.  The Foundation's EIN or federal tax identification
+number is 64-6221541.  Its 501(c)(3) letter is posted at
+http://pglaf.org/fundraising.  Contributions to the Project Gutenberg
+Literary Archive Foundation are tax deductible to the full extent
+permitted by U.S. federal laws and your state's laws.
+
+The Foundation's principal office is located at 4557 Melan Dr. S.
+Fairbanks, AK, 99712., but its volunteers and employees are scattered
+throughout numerous locations.  Its business office is located at
+809 North 1500 West, Salt Lake City, UT 84116, (801) 596-1887, email
+business@pglaf.org.  Email contact links and up to date contact
+information can be found at the Foundation's web site and official
+page at http://pglaf.org
+
+For additional contact information:
+     Dr. Gregory B. Newby
+     Chief Executive and Director
+     gbnewby@pglaf.org
+
+
+Section 4.  Information about Donations to the Project Gutenberg
+Literary Archive Foundation
+
+Project Gutenberg-tm depends upon and cannot survive without wide
+spread public support and donations to carry out its mission of
+increasing the number of public domain and licensed works that can be
+freely distributed in machine readable form accessible by the widest
+array of equipment including outdated equipment.  Many small donations
+($1 to $5,000) are particularly important to maintaining tax exempt
+status with the IRS.
+
+The Foundation is committed to complying with the laws regulating
+charities and charitable donations in all 50 states of the United
+States.  Compliance requirements are not uniform and it takes a
+considerable effort, much paperwork and many fees to meet and keep up
+with these requirements.  We do not solicit donations in locations
+where we have not received written confirmation of compliance.  To
+SEND DONATIONS or determine the status of compliance for any
+particular state visit http://pglaf.org
+
+While we cannot and do not solicit contributions from states where we
+have not met the solicitation requirements, we know of no prohibition
+against accepting unsolicited donations from donors in such states who
+approach us with offers to donate.
+
+International donations are gratefully accepted, but we cannot make
+any statements concerning tax treatment of donations received from
+outside the United States.  U.S. laws alone swamp our small staff.
+
+Please check the Project Gutenberg Web pages for current donation
+methods and addresses.  Donations are accepted in a number of other
+ways including checks, online payments and credit card donations.
+To donate, please visit: http://pglaf.org/donate
+
+
+Section 5.  General Information About Project Gutenberg-tm electronic
+works.
+
+Professor Michael S. Hart is the originator of the Project Gutenberg-tm
+concept of a library of electronic works that could be freely shared
+with anyone.  For thirty years, he produced and distributed Project
+Gutenberg-tm eBooks with only a loose network of volunteer support.
+
+
+Project Gutenberg-tm eBooks are often created from several printed
+editions, all of which are confirmed as Public Domain in the U.S.
+unless a copyright notice is included.  Thus, we do not necessarily
+keep eBooks in compliance with any particular paper edition.
+
+
+Most people start at our Web site which has the main PG search facility:
+
+     http://www.gutenberg.org
+
+This Web site includes information about Project Gutenberg-tm,
+including how to make donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary
+Archive Foundation, how to help produce our new eBooks, and how to
+subscribe to our email newsletter to hear about new eBooks.
diff --git a/old/44728-8.zip b/old/44728-8.zip
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..871dc79
--- /dev/null
+++ b/old/44728-8.zip
diff --git a/old/44728-h.zip b/old/44728-h.zip
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..a7dedfc
--- /dev/null
+++ b/old/44728-h.zip
diff --git a/old/44728-h/44728-h.htm b/old/44728-h/44728-h.htm
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..3bca75d
--- /dev/null
+++ b/old/44728-h/44728-h.htm
@@ -0,0 +1,4617 @@
+<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Strict//EN"
+    "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-strict.dtd">
+<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml" xml:lang="en" lang="en">
+  <head>
+    <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;charset=utf-8" />
+    <meta http-equiv="Content-Style-Type" content="text/css" />
+    <title>
+      Kinship and Social Organisation, by W. H. R. Rivers--The Project Gutenberg eBook
+    </title>
+    <link rel="coverpage" href="images/cover.jpg" />
+
+    <style type="text/css">
+
+body {
+    margin-left: 10%;
+    margin-right: 10%;
+}
+
+    h1,h2 {
+    text-align: center; /* all headings centered */
+    clear: both;
+    margin-top: 2em;
+}
+
+p {
+    margin-top: .51em;
+    text-align: justify;
+    margin-bottom: .49em;
+}
+
+.container {text-align: center;}
+
+.ad {max-width: 40em; text-align: left; display: inline-block;}
+
+.sig   {margin-left: 4em;}
+
+.p2       {margin-top: 2em;}
+.p4       {margin-top: 4em;}
+
+.small    {font-size: small;}
+.xx-large    {font-size: xx-large;}
+
+hr {
+    width: 33%;
+    margin-top: 2em;
+    margin-bottom: 2em;
+    margin-left: auto;
+    margin-right: auto;
+    clear: both;
+}
+
+hr.full {margin-left: 2.5%; margin-right: 2.5%; width: 95%;}
+
+.tb {margin-top: 2em;}
+
+
+ul { list-style-type: none; }
+
+.break
+{
+  page-break-before: always;
+}
+
+h1,h2
+{
+  page-break-before: always;
+}
+
+.nobreak
+{
+  page-break-before: avoid;
+}
+
+table {
+    margin-left: auto;
+    margin-right: auto;
+}
+
+    .tdl      {text-align: left;}
+
+.pagenum {
+    position: absolute;
+    right: 1%;
+    font-size: x-small;
+    font-weight: normal;
+    font-variant: normal;
+    font-style: normal;
+    letter-spacing: normal;
+    text-indent: 0em;
+    text-align: right;
+    color: #999999;
+    background-color: #ffffff;
+}
+
+.center   {text-align: center;}
+
+.right   {text-align: right;}
+
+.smcap    {font-variant: small-caps;}
+.lowercase   { text-transform:lowercase; }
+
+/* Images */
+.figcenter   {
+    margin: auto;
+    text-align: center;
+}
+
+
+/* Footnotes */
+.footnotes        {border: dashed 1px;}
+
+.footnote         {margin-left: 10%; margin-right: 10%; font-size: 0.9em;}
+
+.footnote .label  {position: absolute; right: 84%; text-align: right;}
+
+.fnanchor {
+    vertical-align: super;
+    font-size: .8em;
+    text-decoration:
+    none;
+}
+
+/* Transcriber's notes */
+.transnote {background-color: #E6E6FA;
+    color: black;
+     font-size:smaller;
+     padding:0.5em;
+     margin-bottom:5em;
+     font-family:sans-serif, serif; }
+
+.covernote {visibility: hidden; display: none;}
+
+@media handheld {
+  .covernote {visibility: visible; display: block;}
+}
+
+
+    </style>
+  </head>
+<body>
+
+
+<pre>
+
+Project Gutenberg's Kinship and Social Organisation, by W. H. R. Rivers
+
+This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere at no cost and with
+almost no restrictions whatsoever.  You may copy it, give it away or
+re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included
+with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org/license
+
+
+Title: Kinship and Social Organisation
+
+Author: W. H. R. Rivers
+
+Release Date: January 22, 2014 [EBook #44728]
+
+Language: English
+
+Character set encoding: UTF-8
+
+*** START OF THIS PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK KINSHIP AND SOCIAL ORGANISATION ***
+
+
+
+
+Produced by Henry Flower and the Online Distributed
+Proofreading Team at http://www.pgdp.net (This file was
+produced from images generously made available by The
+Internet Archive/Canadian Libraries)
+
+
+
+
+
+
+</pre>
+
+
+<div class="transnote covernote center">
+  <p>The cover image was created by the transcriber and is placed in the public domain.</p>
+</div>
+
+<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_a001" id="Page_a001">[i]</a></span></p>
+
+
+
+
+<p class="break p4 center">
+STUDIES IN ECONOMIC AND POLITICAL SCIENCE</p>
+
+<p class="center">Edited by the HON. W. PEMBER REEVES<br />
+
+<span class="small"><i>Director of the London School of Economics and Political Science</i></span></p>
+
+<p class="center">No. 36 in the Series of Monographs by Writers connected
+with the London School of Economics and Political Science.</p>
+
+
+<p class="p4 center">KINSHIP AND SOCIAL ORGANISATION
+</p>
+
+<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_a002" id="Page_a002">[ii]</a></span><br /></p>
+<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_a003" id="Page_a003">[iii]</a></span></p>
+
+
+
+
+<h1>
+Kinship and<br />
+
+Social Organisation</h1>
+
+<p class="p4 center">
+<span class="small">By</span><br />
+
+W. H. R. RIVERS, <span class="smcap lowercase">M.D., F.R.S.</span>,<br />
+
+<span class="small">Fellow of St. John’s College, Cambridge</span></p>
+
+
+<p class="p4 center">
+LONDON<br />
+CONSTABLE &amp; CO LTD<br />
+<span class="small">1914</span>
+</p>
+
+
+
+<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_a004" id="Page_a004">[iv]</a></span><br /></p>
+<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_a005" id="Page_a005">[v]</a></span></p>
+
+
+
+
+<h2>CONTENTS</h2>
+
+
+
+
+<div class="center">
+<table class="tdl" border="0" cellpadding="4" cellspacing="0" summary="Table of Contents">
+<tr><td colspan="2" class="right small">PAGE</td></tr>
+<tr><td>PREFACE</td><td class="right"><a href="#Page_a007">vii.</a></td></tr>
+<tr><td>LECTURE I</td><td class="right"><a href="#Page_1">1</a></td></tr>
+<tr><td>LECTURE II</td><td class="right"><a href="#Page_28">28</a></td></tr>
+<tr><td>LECTURE III</td><td class="right"><a href="#Page_60">60</a></td></tr>
+<tr><td>INDEX</td><td class="right"><a href="#Page_95">95</a></td></tr>
+</table></div>
+
+
+
+<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_a006" id="Page_a006">[vi]</a></span><br /></p>
+<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_a007" id="Page_a007">[vii]</a></span></p>
+
+
+
+
+<h2>PREFACE.</h2>
+
+
+<p>These lectures were delivered at the London
+School of Economics in May of the present year.
+They are largely based on experience gained in the
+work of the Percy Sladen Trust Expedition to
+Melanesia of 1908, and give a simplified record of
+social conditions which will be described in detail
+in the full account of the work of that expedition.</p>
+
+<p>A few small additions and modifications have
+been made since the lectures were given, some of
+these being due to suggestions made by Professor
+Westermarck and Dr. Malinowski in the discussions
+which followed the lectures. I am also
+indebted to Miss B. Freire-Marreco for allowing
+me to refer to unpublished material collected
+during her recent work among the Pueblo Indians
+of North America.</p>
+
+<p class="sig">
+<span class="smcap">W. H. R. Rivers.</span></p>
+<p>
+St. John’s College,<br />
+Cambridge.<br />
+<i>November 19th, 1913.</i>
+</p>
+
+
+
+<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_a008" id="Page_a008">[viii]</a></span><br /></p>
+<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_1" id="Page_1">[1]</a></span></p>
+
+
+
+
+<p class="break p4 center xx-large">KINSHIP AND SOCIAL<br />
+
+ORGANISATION</p>
+
+
+
+
+<h2>LECTURE I</h2>
+
+
+<p>The aim of these lectures is to demonstrate the
+close connection which exists between methods of
+denoting relationship or kinship and forms of social
+organisation, including those based on different
+varieties of the institution of marriage. In other
+words, my aim will be to show that the terminology
+of relationship has been rigorously determined by
+social conditions and that, if this position has been
+established and accepted, systems of relationship
+furnish us with a most valuable instrument in
+studying the history of social institutions.</p>
+
+<p>In the controversy of the present and of recent
+times, it is the special mode of denoting relationship
+known as the classificatory system which has
+formed the chief subject of discussion. It is in
+connection with this system that there have arisen
+the various vexed questions which have so excited
+the interest&mdash;I might almost say the passions&mdash;of<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_2" id="Page_2">[2]</a></span>
+sociologists during the last quarter of a century.</p>
+
+<p>I am afraid it would be dangerous to assume
+your familiarity with this system, and I must
+therefore begin with a brief description of its main
+characters. The essential feature of the classificatory
+system, that to which it owes its name, is
+the application of its terms, not to single individual
+persons, but to classes of relatives which may often
+be very large. Objections have been made to the
+use of the term “classificatory” on the ground
+that our own terms of relationship also apply to
+classes of persons; the term “brother,” for instance,
+to all the male children of the same father and
+mother, the term “uncle” to all the brothers of the
+father and mother as well as to the husband of an
+aunt, while the term “cousin” may denote a still
+larger class. It is, of course, true that many of
+our own terms of relationship apply to classes of
+persons, but in the systems to which the word
+“classificatory” is usually applied, the classificatory
+principle applies far more widely, and in some cases
+even, more logically and consistently. In the most
+complete form of the classificatory system there is
+not one single term of relationship the use of which
+tells us that reference is being made to one person
+and to one person only, whereas in our own system
+there are six such terms, viz., husband, wife,
+father, mother, father-in-law and mother-in-law.
+In those systems in which the classificatory
+principle is carried to its extreme degree every
+term is applied to a class of persons. The term<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_3" id="Page_3">[3]</a></span>
+“father,” for instance, is applied to all those whom
+the father would call brother, and to all the
+husbands of those whom the mother calls sister,
+both brother and sister being used in a far wider
+sense than among ourselves. In some forms of the
+classificatory system the term “father” is also used
+for all those whom the mother would call brother,
+and for all the husbands of those whom the father
+would call sister, and in other systems the application
+of the term may be still more extensive.
+Similarly, the term used for the wife may be
+applied to all those whom the wife would call sister
+and to the wives of all those whom the speaker calls
+brother, brother and sister again being used in a
+far wider sense than in our own language.</p>
+
+<p>The classificatory system has many other features
+which mark it off more or less sharply from our
+own mode of denoting relationship, but I do not
+think it would be profitable to attempt a full
+description at this stage of our enquiry. As I have
+said, the object of these lectures is to show how
+the various features of the classificatory system
+have arisen out of, and can therefore be explained
+historically by, social facts. If you are not
+already acquainted with these features, you will
+learn to know them the more easily if at the same
+time you learn how they have come into existence.</p>
+
+<p>I will begin with a brief history of the subject.
+So long as it was supposed that all the peoples of
+the world denoted relationship in the same way,
+namely, that which is customary among ourselves,<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_4" id="Page_4">[4]</a></span>
+there was no problem. There was no reason why
+the subject should have awakened any interest, and
+so far as I have been able to find, it is only since
+the discovery of the classificatory system of
+relationship that the problem now before us was
+ever raised. I imagine that, if students ever thought
+about the matter at all, it must have seemed
+obvious that the way in which they and the other
+known peoples of the world used terms of relationship
+was conditioned and determined by the social
+relations which the terms denoted.</p>
+
+<p>The state of affairs became very different as soon
+as it was known that many peoples of the world
+use terms of relationship in a manner, and according
+to rules, so widely different from our own that
+they seem to belong to an altogether different
+order, a difference well illustrated by the confusion
+which is apt to arise when we use English words
+in the translation of classificatory terms or classificatory
+terms as the equivalents of our own. The
+difficulty or impossibility of conforming to complete
+truth and reality, when we attempt this task, is
+the best witness to the fundamental difference
+between the two modes of denoting relationship.</p>
+
+<p>I do not know of any discovery in the whole
+range of science which can be more certainly put
+to the credit of one man than that of the classificatory
+system of relationship by Lewis Morgan.
+By this I mean, not merely that he was the first
+to point out clearly the existence of this mode of
+denoting relationship, but that it was he who<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_5" id="Page_5">[5]</a></span>
+collected the vast mass of material by which the
+essential characters of the system were demonstrated,
+and it was he who was the first to recognise
+the great theoretical importance of his new discovery.
+It is the denial of this importance by
+his contemporaries and successors which furnishes
+the best proof of the credit which is due to him
+for the discovery. The very extent of the material
+he collected<a name="FNanchor_1_1" id="FNanchor_1_1"></a><a href="#Footnote_1_1" class="fnanchor">[1]</a> has probably done much to obstruct
+the recognition of the importance of his work.
+It is a somewhat discouraging thought that, if
+Morgan had been less industrious and had amassed
+a smaller collection of material which could have
+been embodied in a more available form, the value
+of his work would probably have been far more
+widely recognised than it is to-day. The volume
+of his material is, however, only a subsidiary factor
+in the process which has led to the neglect or
+rejection of the importance of Morgan’s discovery.
+The chief cause of the neglect is one for which
+Morgan must himself largely bear the blame. He
+was not content to demonstrate, as he might to
+some extent have done from his own material, the
+close connection between the terminology of the
+classificatory system of relationship and forms of
+social organisation. There can be little doubt that
+he recognised this connection, but he was not content
+to demonstrate the dependence of the
+terminology of relationship upon social forms the<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_6" id="Page_6">[6]</a></span>
+existence of which was already known, or which
+were capable of demonstration with the material
+at his disposal. He passed over all these early
+stages of the argument, and proceeded directly
+to refer the origin of the terminology to forms of
+social organisation which were not known to exist
+anywhere on the earth and of which there was no
+direct evidence in the past. When, further, the
+social condition which Morgan was led to formulate
+was one of general promiscuity developing into
+group-marriage, conditions bitterly repugnant to
+the sentiments of most civilised persons, it is not
+surprising that he aroused a mass of heated
+opposition which led, not merely to widespread
+rejection of his views, but also to the neglect of
+lessons to be learnt from his new discovery which
+must have received general recognition long before
+this, if they had not been obscured by other issues.</p>
+
+<p>The first to take up the cudgels in opposition to
+Morgan was our own pioneer in the study of the
+early forms of human society, John Ferguson
+McLennan.<a name="FNanchor_2_2" id="FNanchor_2_2"></a><a href="#Footnote_2_2" class="fnanchor">[2]</a> He criticised the views of Morgan
+severely and often justly, and then pointing out,
+as was then believed to be the case, that no duties
+or rights were connected with the relationships
+of the classificatory system, he concluded that the
+terms formed merely a code of courtesies and
+ceremonial addresses for social intercourse. Those
+who have followed him have usually been content
+to repeat the conclusion that the classificatory<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_7" id="Page_7">[7]</a></span>
+system is nothing more than a body of mutual
+salutations and terms of address. They have failed
+to see that it still remains necessary to explain how
+the terms of the classificatory system came to be
+used in mutual salutation. They have failed to
+recognise that they were either rejecting the
+principle of determinism in sociology, or were
+only putting back to a conveniently remote distance
+the consideration of the problem how and
+why the classificatory terms came to be used in
+the way now customary among so many peoples
+of the earth.</p>
+
+<p>This aspect of the problem, which has been
+neglected or put on one side by the followers of
+McLennan, was not so treated by McLennan
+himself. As we should expect from the general
+character of his work, McLennan clearly recognised
+that the classificatory system must have been
+determined by social conditions, and he tried to
+show how it might have arisen as the result of the
+change from the Nair to the Tibetan form of
+polyandry.<a name="FNanchor_3_3" id="FNanchor_3_3"></a><a href="#Footnote_3_3" class="fnanchor">[3]</a> He even went so far as to formulate
+varieties of this process by means of which there
+might have been produced the chief varieties of the
+classificatory system, the existence of which had
+been demonstrated by Morgan. It is quite clear
+that McLennan had no doubts about the necessity
+of tracing back the social institution of the classificatory
+system of relationship to social causes, a
+necessity which has been ignored or even explicitly<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_8" id="Page_8">[8]</a></span>
+denied by those who have followed him in rejecting
+the views of Morgan. It is one of the many
+unfortunate consequences of McLennan’s belief in
+the importance of polyandry in the history of
+human society that it has helped to prevent his
+followers from seeing the social importance of the
+classificatory system. They have failed to see that
+the classificatory system may be the result neither
+of promiscuity nor of polyandry, and yet have been
+determined, both in its general character and in its
+details, by forms of social organisation.</p>
+
+<p>Since the time of Morgan and McLennan few
+have attempted to deal with the question in any
+comprehensive manner. The problem has inevitably
+been involved in the controversy which has
+raged between the advocates of the original promiscuity
+or the primitive monogamy of mankind, but
+most of the former have been ready to accept
+Morgan’s views blindly, while the latter have been
+content to try to explain away the importance of
+conclusions derived from the classificatory system
+without attempting any real study of the evidence.
+On the side of Morgan there has been one exception
+in the person of Professor J. Kohler,<a name="FNanchor_4_4" id="FNanchor_4_4"></a><a href="#Footnote_4_4" class="fnanchor">[4]</a> who has
+recognised the lines on which the problem must be
+studied, while on the other side there has been, so
+far as I am aware, only one writer who has recognised
+that the evidence from the nature of the
+classificatory system of relationship cannot be<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_9" id="Page_9">[9]</a></span>
+ignored or belittled, but must be faced and some
+explanation alternative to that of Morgan provided.</p>
+
+<p>This attempt was made four years ago by Professor
+Kroeber,<a name="FNanchor_5_5" id="FNanchor_5_5"></a><a href="#Footnote_5_5" class="fnanchor">[5]</a> of the University of California.
+The line he takes is absolutely to reject the view
+common to both Morgan and McLennan that the
+nature of the classificatory system has been determined
+by social conditions. He explicitly rejects
+the view that the mode of using terms of relationship
+depends on social causes, and puts forward as
+the alternative that they are conditioned by causes
+purely linguistic and psychological.</p>
+
+<p>It is not quite easy to understand what is meant
+by the linguistic causation of terms of relationship.
+In the summary at the end of his paper Kroeber
+concludes that “they (terms of relationship) are
+determined primarily by language.” Terms of
+relationship, however, are elements of language,
+so that Kroeber’s proposition is that elements of
+language are determined primarily by language. In
+so far as this proposition has any meaning, it must
+be that, in the process of seeking the origin of
+linguistic phenomena, it is our business to ignore
+any but linguistic facts. It would follow that the
+student of the subject should seek the antecedents
+of linguistic phenomena in other linguistic
+phenomena, and put on one side as not germane to
+his task all reference to the objects and relations
+which the words denote and connote.</p>
+
+<p>Professor Kroeber’s alternative proposition is<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_10" id="Page_10">[10]</a></span>
+that terms of relationship reflect psychology, not
+sociology, or, in other words, that the way in which
+terms of relationship are used depends on a chain
+of causation in which psychological processes are
+the direct antecedents of this use. I will try to
+make his meaning clear by means of an instance
+which he himself gives. He says that at the
+present time there is a tendency among ourselves
+to speak of the brother-in-law as a brother; in other
+words, we tend to class the brother-in-law and the
+brother together in the nomenclature of our own
+system of relationship. He supposes that we do
+this because there is a psychological similarity
+between the two relationships which leads us to
+class them together in our customary nomenclature.
+I shall return both to this and other of his examples
+later.</p>
+
+<p>We have now seen that the opponents of Morgan
+have taken up two main positions which it is
+possible to attack: one, that the classificatory
+system is nothing more than a body of terms of
+address; the other, that it and other modes of
+denoting relationship are determined by psychological
+and not by sociological causes. I propose to
+consider these two positions in turn.</p>
+
+<p>Morgan himself was evidently deeply impressed
+by the function of the classificatory system of
+relationship as a body of salutations. His own
+experience was derived from the North American
+Indians, and he notes the exclusive use of terms
+of relationship in address, a usage so habitual that<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_11" id="Page_11">[11]</a></span>
+an omission to recognise a relative in this manner
+would amount almost to an affront. Morgan also
+points out, as one motive for the custom, the
+presence of a reluctance to utter personal names.
+McLennan had to rely entirely on the evidence
+collected by Morgan, and there can be no doubt
+that he was greatly influenced by the stress Morgan
+himself laid on the function of the classificatory
+terms as mutual salutations. That in rude societies
+certain relatives have social functions definitely
+assigned to them by custom was known in Morgan’s
+time, and I think it might even then have been
+discovered that the relationships which carried
+these functions were of the classificatory kind. It
+is, however, only by more recent work, beginning
+with that of Howitt, of Spencer and Gillen, and
+of Roth in Australia, and of the Cambridge
+Expedition to Torres Straits, that the great importance
+of the functions of relatives through the
+classificatory system has been forced upon the
+attention of sociologists. The social and ceremonial
+proceedings of the Australian aborigines abound in
+features in which special functions are performed
+by such relatives as the elder brother or the brother
+of the mother, while in Torres Straits I was able
+to record large groups of duties, privileges and
+restrictions associated with different classificatory
+relationships.</p>
+
+<p>Further work has shown that widely, though not
+universally, the nomenclature of the classificatory
+system carries with it a number of clearly defined<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_12" id="Page_12">[12]</a></span>
+social practices. One who applies a given term of
+relationship to another person has to behave
+towards that person in certain definite ways. He
+has to perform certain duties towards him, and
+enjoys certain privileges, and is subject to certain
+restrictions in his conduct in relation to him. These
+duties, privileges and restrictions vary greatly in
+number among different peoples, but wherever
+they exist, I know of no exception to their importance
+and to the regard in which they are held by
+all members of the community. You doubtless
+know of many examples of such functions associated
+with relationship, and I need give only one
+example.</p>
+
+<p>In the Banks Islands the term used between two
+brothers-in-law is <i>wulus</i>, <i>walus</i>, or <i>walui</i>, and a
+man who applies one of these terms to another may
+not utter his name, nor may the two behave
+familiarly towards one another in any way. In one
+island, Merlav, these relatives have all their possessions
+in common, and it is the duty of one to help
+the other in any difficulty, to warn him in danger,
+and, if need be, to die with him. If one dies, the
+other has to help to support his widow and has to
+abstain from certain foods. Further, there are a
+number of curious regulations in which the sanctity
+of the head plays a great part. A man must take
+nothing from above the head of his brother-in-law,
+nor may he even eat a bird which has flown over
+his head. A person has only to say of an object
+“That is the head of your brother-in-law,” and<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_13" id="Page_13">[13]</a></span>
+the person addressed will have to desist from the
+use of the object. If the object is edible, it may
+not be eaten; if it is one which is being manufactured,
+such as a mat, the person addressed will
+have to cease from his work if the object be thus
+called the head of his brother-in-law. He will only
+be allowed to finish it on making compensation,
+not to the person who has prevented the work by
+reference to the head, but to the brother-in-law
+whose head had been mentioned. Ludicrous
+as some of these customs may seem to us, they
+are very far from being so to those who practise
+them. They show clearly the very important
+part taken in the lives of those who use the classificatory
+system by the social functions associated
+with relationship. As I have said, these functions
+are not universally associated with the classificatory
+system, but they are very general in many parts
+of the world and only need more careful investigation
+to be found even more general and more
+important than appears at present.</p>
+
+<p>Let us now look at our own system of relationship
+from this point of view. Two striking features
+present themselves. First, the great paucity of
+definite social functions associated with relationship,
+and secondly, the almost complete limitation
+of such functions to those relationships which
+apply only to individual persons and not to classes
+of persons. Of such relationships as cousin, uncle,
+aunt, father-in-law, or mother-in-law there may be
+said to be no definite social functions. A school-boy<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_14" id="Page_14">[14]</a></span>
+believes it is the duty of his uncle to tip him,
+but this is about as near as one can get to any
+social obligation on the part of this relative.</p>
+
+<p>The same will be found to hold good to a large
+extent if we turn to those social regulations which
+have been embodied in our laws. It is only in the
+case of the transmission of hereditary rank and of
+the property of a person dying intestate that more
+distant relatives are brought into any legal relationship
+with one another, and then only if there is an
+absence of nearer relatives. It is only when forced
+to do so by exceptional circumstances that the law
+recognises any of the persons to whom the more
+classificatory of our terms of relationship apply.
+If we pay regard to the social functions associated
+with relationship, it is our own system, rather than
+the classificatory, which is open to the reproach
+that its relationships carry into them no rights and
+duties.</p>
+
+<p>In the course of the recent work of the Percy
+Sladen Trust Expedition in Melanesia and Polynesia
+I have been able to collect a body of facts
+which bring out, even more clearly than has hitherto
+been recognised, the dependence of classificatory
+terms on social rights.<a name="FNanchor_6_6" id="FNanchor_6_6"></a><a href="#Footnote_6_6" class="fnanchor">[6]</a> The classificatory systems
+of Oceania vary greatly in character. In some
+places relationships are definitely distinguished in
+nomenclature which are classed with other relationships
+elsewhere. Thus, while most Melanesian and<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_15" id="Page_15">[15]</a></span>
+some Polynesian systems have a definite term for
+the mother’s brother and for the class of relatives
+whom the mother calls brother, in other systems
+this relative is classed with, and is denoted by, the
+same term as the father. The point to which I
+now call your attention is that there is a very close
+correlation between the presence of a special term
+for this relative and the presence of special
+functions attached to the relationship.</p>
+
+<p>In Polynesia, both the Hawaiians and the
+inhabitants of Niue class the mother’s brother with
+the father, and in neither place was I able to
+discover that there were any special duties,
+privileges or restrictions ascribed to the mother’s
+brother. In the Polynesian islands of Tonga
+and Tikopia, on the other hand, where there are
+special terms for the mother’s brother, this relative
+has also special functions. The only place in
+Melanesia where I failed to find a special term for
+the mother’s brother was in the western Solomon
+Islands, and that was also the only part of
+Melanesia where I failed to find any trace of special
+social functions ascribed to this relative. I do not
+know of such functions in Santa Cruz, but my
+information about the system of that island is
+derived from others, and further research will
+almost certainly show that they are present.</p>
+
+<p>In my own experience, then, among two different
+peoples, I have been able to establish a definite
+correlation between the presence of a term of
+relationship and special functions associated with<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_16" id="Page_16">[16]</a></span>
+the relationship. Information kindly given to me
+by Father Egidi, however, seems to show that the
+correlation among the Melanesians is not complete.
+In Mekeo, the mother’s brother has the duty of
+putting on the first perineal garment of his nephew,
+but he has no special term and is classed with the
+father. Among the Kuni, on the other hand, there
+is a definite term for the mother’s brother distinguishing
+him from the father, but yet he has
+not, so far as Father Egidi knows, any special
+functions.</p>
+
+<p>Both in Melanesia and Polynesia a similar correlation
+comes out in connection with other relationships,
+the most prominent exception being the
+absence of a special term for the father’s sister in
+the Banks Islands, although this relative has very
+definite and important functions. In these islands
+the father’s sister is classed with the mother as
+<i>vev</i> or <i>veve</i>, but even here, where the generalisation
+seems to break down, it does not do so completely,
+for the father’s sister is distinguished from the
+mother as <i>veve vus rawe</i>, the mother who kills a
+pig, as opposed to the simple <i>veve</i> used for the
+mother and her sisters.</p>
+
+<p>There is thus definite evidence, not only for the
+association of classificatory terms of relationship
+with special social functions, but from one part of
+the world we now have evidence which shows that
+the presence or absence of special terms is largely
+dependent on whether there are or are not such
+functions. We may take it as established that the<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_17" id="Page_17">[17]</a></span>
+terms of the classificatory system are not, as
+McLennan supposed, merely terms of address and
+modes of mutual salutation. McLennan came to
+this conclusion because he believed that the classificatory
+terms were associated with no such
+functions as those of which we now have abundant
+evidence. He asks, “What duties or rights are
+affected by the relationships comprised in the classificatory
+system?” and answers himself according
+to the knowledge at his disposal, “Absolutely
+none.”<a name="FNanchor_7_7" id="FNanchor_7_7"></a><a href="#Footnote_7_7" class="fnanchor">[7]</a> This passage makes it clear that, if
+McLennan had known what we know to-day, he
+would never have taken up the line of attack upon
+Morgan’s position in which he has had, and still
+has, so many followers.</p>
+
+
+
+<p class="tb">I can now turn to the second line of attack, that
+which boldly discards the origin of the terminology
+of relationship in social conditions, and seeks for its
+explanation in psychology. The line of argument
+I propose to follow is first to show that many
+details of classificatory systems have been directly
+determined by social factors. If that task can
+be accomplished, we shall have firm ground from
+which to take off in the attempt to refer the general
+characters of the classificatory and other systems of
+relationship to forms of social organisation. Any
+complete theory of a social institution has not only
+to account for its general characters, but also for
+its details, and I propose to begin with the details.</p>
+<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_18" id="Page_18">[18]</a></span></p>
+<p>I must first return to the history of the subject,
+and stay for a moment to ask why the line of
+argument I propose to follow was not adopted by
+Morgan and has been so largely disregarded by
+others.</p>
+
+<p>Whenever a new phenomenon is discovered in
+any part of the world, there is a natural tendency
+to seek for its parallels elsewhere. Morgan lived
+at a time when the unity of human culture was a
+topic which greatly excited ethnologists, and it is
+evident that one of his chief interests in the new
+discovery arose from the possibility it seemed to
+open of showing the uniformity of human culture.
+He hoped to demonstrate the uniformity of the
+classificatory system throughout the world, and he
+was content to observe certain broad varieties of
+the system and refer them to supposed stages in
+the history of human society. He paid but little
+attention to such varieties of the classificatory
+system as are illustrated in his own record of North
+American systems, and seems to have overlooked
+entirely certain features of the Indian and Oceanic
+systems he recorded, which might have enabled
+him to demonstrate the close relation between the
+terminology of relationship and social institutions.
+Morgan’s neglect to attend to these differences
+must be ascribed in some measure to the ignorance
+of rude forms of social organisation which existed
+when he wrote, but the failure of others to recognise
+the dependence of the details of classificatory
+systems upon social institutions is rather to be<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_19" id="Page_19">[19]</a></span>
+ascribed to the absence of interest in the subject
+induced by their adherence to McLennan’s primary
+error. Those who believe that the classificatory
+system is merely an unimportant code of mutual
+salutations are not likely to attend to relatively
+minute differences in the customs they despise.
+The credit of having been the first fully to recognise
+the social importance of these differences
+belongs to J. Kohler. In his book “Zur Urgeschichte
+der Ehe,” which I have already mentioned,
+he studied minutely the details of many different
+systems, and showed that they could be explained
+by certain forms of marriage practised by those
+who use the terms. I propose now to deal with
+classificatory terminology from this point of
+view. My procedure will be first to show that
+the details which distinguish different forms of the
+classificatory system from one another have been
+directly determined by the social institutions of
+those who use the systems, and only when this has
+been established, shall I attempt to bring the more
+general characters of the classificatory and other
+systems into relation with social institutions.</p>
+
+<p>I am able to carry out this task more fully than
+has hitherto been possible because I have collected
+in Melanesia a number of systems of relationship
+which differ far more widely from one another than
+those recorded in Morgan’s book or others which
+have been collected since. Some of the features
+which characterise these Melanesian systems will
+be wholly new to ethnologists, not having yet been<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_20" id="Page_20">[20]</a></span>
+recorded elsewhere, but I propose to begin with
+a long familiar mode of terminology which accompanies
+that widely distributed custom known as
+the cross-cousin marriage. In the more frequent
+form of this marriage a man marries the daughter
+either of his mother’s brother or of his father’s
+sister; more rarely his choice is limited to one of
+these relatives.</p>
+
+<p>Such a marriage will have certain definite
+consequences. Let us take a case in which a man
+marries the daughter of his mother’s brother, as is
+represented in the following diagram:</p>
+
+<div>
+<p class="center smcap">Diagram 1<a name="FNanchor_8_8" id="FNanchor_8_8"></a><a href="#Footnote_8_8" class="fnanchor">[8]</a></p>
+
+<div class="figcenter" style="width: 500px;">
+<img src="images/zill_t020.png" width="500" height="111" alt="" />
+</div></div>
+
+<p>One consequence of the marriage between <i>C</i> and <i>d</i>
+will be that <i>A</i>, who before the marriage of <i>C</i> was
+only his mother’s brother, now becomes also his
+wife’s father, while <i>b</i>, who before the marriage
+was the mother’s brother’s wife of <i>C</i>, now becomes
+his wife’s mother. Reciprocally, <i>C</i>, who before
+his marriage had been the sister’s son of <i>A</i> and the
+husband’s sister’s son of <i>b</i>, now becomes their
+son-in-law. Further, <i>E</i> and <i>f</i>, the other children
+of <i>A</i> and <i>b</i>, who before the marriage had been only
+the cousins of <i>C</i>, now become his wife’s brother
+and sister.</p>
+<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_21" id="Page_21">[21]</a></span></p>
+<p>Similarly, <i>a</i>, who before the marriage of <i>d</i> was
+her father’s sister, now becomes also her husband’s
+mother, and <i>B</i>, her father’s sister’s husband, comes
+to stand in the relation of husband’s father;
+if <i>C</i> should have any brothers and sisters, these
+cousins now become her brothers- and sisters-in-law.</p>
+
+<p>The combinations of relationship which follow
+from the marriage of a man with the daughter of
+his mother’s brother thus differ for a man and
+a woman, but if, as is usual, a man may marry
+the daughter either of his mother’s brother or of
+his father’s sister, these combinations of relationship
+will hold good for both men and women.</p>
+
+<p>Another and more remote consequence of the
+cross-cousin marriage, if this become an established
+institution, is that the relationships of mother’s
+brother and father’s sister’s husband will come to
+be combined in one and the same person, and that
+there will be a similar combination of the relationships
+of father’s sister and mother’s brother’s wife.
+If the cross-cousin marriage be the habitual
+custom, <i>B</i> and <i>b</i> in Diagram 1 will be brother and
+sister; in consequence <i>A</i> will be at once the
+mother’s brother and the father’s sister’s husband
+of <i>C</i>, while <i>b</i> will be both his father’s sister and his
+mother’s brother’s wife. Since, however, the
+mother’s brother is also the father-in-law, and the
+father’s sister the mother-in-law, three different
+relationships will be combined in each case.
+Through the cross-cousin marriage the relationships<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_22" id="Page_22">[22]</a></span>
+of mother’s brother, father’s sister’s husband and
+father-in-law will be combined in one and the same
+person, and the relationships of father’s sister,
+mother’s brother’s wife and mother-in-law will be
+similarly combined.</p>
+
+<p>In many places where we know the cross-cousin
+marriage to be an established institution, we find
+just those common designations which I have just
+described. Thus, in the Mbau dialect of Fiji the
+word <i>vungo</i> is applied to the mother’s brother, the
+husband of the father’s sister and the father-in-law.
+The word <i>nganei</i> is used for the father’s
+sister, the mother’s brother’s wife and the mother-in-law.
+The term <i>tavale</i> is used by a man for the
+son of the mother’s brother or of the father’s sister
+as well as for the wife’s brother and the sister’s
+husband. <i>Ndavola</i> is used not only for the child
+of the mother’s brother or father’s sister when
+differing in sex from the speaker, but this word
+is also used by a man for his wife’s sister and
+his brother’s wife, and by a woman for her
+husband’s brother and her sister’s husband. Every
+one of these details of the Mbau system is the direct
+and inevitable consequence of the cross-cousin
+marriage, if it become an established and habitual
+practice.</p>
+
+<p>This Fijian system does not stand alone in
+Melanesia. In the southern islands of the New
+Hebrides, in Tanna, Eromanga, Anaiteum and
+Aniwa, the cross-cousin marriage is practised and
+their systems of relationship have features similar to<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_23" id="Page_23">[23]</a></span>
+those of Fiji. Thus, in Anaiteum the word <i>matak</i>
+applies to the mother’s brother, the father’s sister’s
+husband and the father-in-law, while the word
+<i>engak</i> used for the cross-cousin is not only used
+for the wife’s sister and the brother’s wife, but also
+for the wife herself.</p>
+
+<p>Again, in the island of Guadalcanar in the
+Solomons the system of relationship is just such as
+would result from the cross-cousin marriage. One
+term, <i>nia</i>, is used for the mother’s brother and
+the wife’s father, and probably also for the father’s
+sister’s husband and the husband’s father, though
+my stay in the island was not long enough to enable
+me to collect sufficient genealogical material to
+demonstrate these points completely. Similarly,
+<i>tarunga</i> includes in its connotation the father’s
+sister, the mother’s brother’s wife and the wife’s
+mother, and probably also the husband’s mother,
+while the word <i>iva</i> is used for both cross-cousins
+and brothers- and sisters-in-law. Corresponding
+to this terminology there seemed to be no doubt
+that it was the custom for a man to marry the
+daughter of his mother’s brother or his father’s
+sister, though I was not able to demonstrate this
+form of marriage genealogically.</p>
+
+<p>These three regions, Fiji, the southern New
+Hebrides and Guadalcanar, are the only parts of
+Melanesia included in my survey where I found the
+practice of the cross-cousin marriage, and in all
+three regions the systems of relationship are just
+such as would follow from this form of marriage.</p>
+
+<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_24" id="Page_24">[24]</a></span></p>
+
+<p>Let us now turn to inquire how far it is possible
+to explain these features of Melanesian systems
+of relationship by psychological similarity. If it
+were not for the cross-cousin marriage, what
+can there be to give the mother’s brother a
+greater psychological similarity to the father-in-law
+than the father’s brother, or the father’s sister
+a greater similarity to the mother-in-law than the
+mother’s sister? Why should it be two special
+kinds of cousin who are classed with two special
+kinds of brother- and sister-in-law or with the
+husband or wife? Once granted the presence of
+the cross-cousin marriage, and there are psychological
+similarities certainly, though even here the
+matter is not quite straightforward from the point
+of view of the believer in their importance, for we
+have to do not merely with the similarity of two
+relatives, but with their identity, with the combination
+of two or more relationships in one and
+the same person. Even if we put this on one side,
+however, it remains to ask how it is possible to
+say that terms of relationship do not reflect
+sociology, if such psychological similarities are
+themselves the result of the cross-cousin marriage?
+What point is there in bringing in hypothetical
+psychological similarities which are only at the best
+intermediate links in the chain of causation connecting
+the terminology of relationship with antecedent
+social conditions?</p>
+
+<p>If you concede the causal relation between the
+characteristic features of a Fijian or Anaiteum or<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_25" id="Page_25">[25]</a></span>
+Guadalcanar system and the cross-cousin marriage,
+there can be no question that it is the cross-cousin
+marriage which is the antecedent and the features
+of the system of relationship the consequences. I
+do not suppose that, even in this subject, there will
+be found anyone to claim that the Fijians took to
+marrying their cross-cousins because such a
+marriage was suggested to them by the nature of
+their system of relationship. We have to do in
+this case, not merely with one or two features which
+might be the consequence of the cross-cousin
+marriage, but with a large and complicated meshwork
+of resemblances and differences in the nomenclature
+of relationship, each and every element of
+which follows directly from such a marriage, while
+no one of the systems I have considered possesses
+a single feature which is not compatible with social
+conditions arising out of this marriage. Apart from
+quantitative verification, I doubt whether it would
+be possible in the whole range of science to find a
+case where we can be more confident that one
+phenomenon has been conditioned by another. I
+feel almost guilty of wasting your time by going
+into it so fully, and should hardly have ventured
+to do so if this case of social causation had not
+been explicitly denied by one with so high a
+reputation as Professor Kroeber. I hope, however,
+that the argument will be useful as an example of
+the method I shall apply to other cases in which
+the evidence is less conclusive.</p>
+
+<p>The features of terminology which follow from<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_26" id="Page_26">[26]</a></span>
+the cross-cousin marriage were known to Morgan,
+being present in three of the systems he recorded
+from Southern India and in the Fijian system
+collected for him by Mr. Fison. The earliest reference<a name="FNanchor_9_9" id="FNanchor_9_9"></a><a href="#Footnote_9_9" class="fnanchor">[9]</a>
+to the cross-cousin marriage which I have
+been able to discover is among the Gonds of Central
+India. This marriage was recorded in 1870, which,
+though earlier than the appearance of Morgan’s
+book, was after it had been accepted for publication,
+so that I think we can be confident that Morgan
+was unacquainted with the form of marriage
+which would have explained the peculiar features
+of the Indian and Fijian systems. It is evident,
+however, that Morgan was so absorbed in his
+demonstration of the similarity of these systems
+to those of America that he paid but little, if
+any, attention to their peculiarities. He thus lost
+a great opportunity; if he had attended to these
+peculiarities and had seen their meaning, he might
+have predicted a form of marriage which would soon
+afterwards have been independently discovered.
+Such an example of successful prediction would
+have forced the social significance of the terminology
+of relationship upon the attention of students
+in such a way that we should have been spared
+much of the controversy which has so long
+obstructed progress in this branch of sociology. It
+must at the very least have acted as a stimulus to
+the collection of systems of relationship. It would
+hardly have been possible that now, more than<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_27" id="Page_27">[27]</a></span>
+forty years after the appearance of Morgan’s book,
+we are still in complete ignorance of the terminology
+of relationship of many peoples about whom
+volumes have been written. It would seem impossible,
+for instance, that our knowledge of Indian
+systems of relationship could have been what it
+is to-day. India would have been the country in
+which the success of Morgan’s prediction would
+first have shown itself, and such an event must have
+prevented the almost total neglect which the
+subject of relationship has suffered at the hands of
+students of Indian sociology.</p>
+
+
+<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_28" id="Page_28">[28]</a></span></p>
+
+
+
+<h2>LECTURE II</h2>
+
+
+<p>In my last lecture I began the demonstration of
+the dependence of the classificatory terminology of
+relationship upon social institutions by showing
+how a number of terms used in several parts of
+Melanesia have been determined by the cross-cousin
+marriage. I showed that in places where
+the cross-cousin marriage is practised there are not
+merely one or two, but large groups of, terms of
+relationship which are exactly such as would follow
+from this form of marriage. To-day I begin by
+considering other forms of Melanesian marriage
+which bring out almost as clearly and conclusively
+the dependence of the classificatory terminology
+upon social conditions.</p>
+
+<p>The systems of relationship of the Banks Islands
+possess certain very remarkable features which were
+first recorded by Dr. Codrington.<a name="FNanchor_10_10" id="FNanchor_10_10"></a><a href="#Footnote_10_10" class="fnanchor">[10]</a> Put very
+shortly, it may be stated that cross-cousins stand
+to one another in the relation of parent and child,
+or, more exactly, cross-cousins apply to one another
+terms of relationship which are otherwise used
+between parents and children. A man applies to
+his mother’s brother’s children the term which he<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_29" id="Page_29">[29]</a></span>
+otherwise uses for his own children, and, conversely,
+a person applies to his father’s sister’s son a term he
+otherwise uses for his father. Thus, in the following
+diagram, <i>C</i> will apply to <i>D</i> and <i>e</i> the terms
+which are in general use for a son and daughter,
+while <i>D</i> and <i>e</i> will apply to <i>C</i> the term they otherwise
+use for their father.</p>
+
+<div>
+<p class="center smcap">Diagram 2.</p>
+
+
+<div class="figcenter" style="width: 500px;">
+<img src="images/zill_t029.png" width="500" height="106" alt="" />
+</div>
+</div>
+
+<p>In most forms of the classificatory system members
+of different generations are denoted in wholly
+different ways and belong to different classes,<a name="FNanchor_11_11" id="FNanchor_11_11"></a><a href="#Footnote_11_11" class="fnanchor">[11]</a> but
+here we have a case in which persons of the same
+generation as the speaker are classed with those of
+an older or a younger generation.</p>
+
+<p>I will first ask you to consider to what kind of
+psychological similarity such a practice can be due.
+What kind of psychological similarity can there
+be between one special kind of cousin and the
+father, and between another special kind of cousin
+and a son or daughter? If the puzzle as put in
+this form does not seem capable of a satisfactory
+answer, let us turn to see if the Banks Islanders
+practise any social custom to which this peculiar
+terminology can have been due. In the story of<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_30" id="Page_30">[30]</a></span>
+Ganviviris told to Dr. Codrington in these islands<a name="FNanchor_12_12" id="FNanchor_12_12"></a><a href="#Footnote_12_12" class="fnanchor">[12]</a>
+an incident occurs in which a man hands over
+one of his wives to his sister’s son, or, in other
+words, in which a man marries one of the wives of
+his mother’s brother. Inquiries showed, not only
+that this form of marriage was once widely current
+in the islands, but that it still persists though in
+a modified form. The Christianity of the natives
+does not now permit a man to have superfluous
+wives whom he can pass on to his sister’s sons, but
+it is still the orthodox, and indeed I was told the
+popular, custom to marry the widow of the
+mother’s brother. It seemed that in the old days
+a man would take the widow of his mother’s
+brother in addition to any wife or wives he might
+already have. Though this is no longer allowed,
+the leaning towards this form of marriage is so
+strong that after fifty years of external influence a
+young man still marries the widow of his mother’s
+brother, sometimes in preference to a girl of his
+own age. Indeed, there was reason to believe that
+there was an obligation to do so, if the deceased
+husband had a nephew who was not yet married.
+The peculiar features of the terminology of relationship
+in these islands are exactly such as would follow
+from this form of marriage. If, in Diagram 2,
+<i>C</i> marries <i>b</i>, the wife or widow of his mother’s
+brother, and thereby comes to occupy the social
+position of his uncle <i>A</i>, the children of the uncle,
+<i>D</i> and <i>e</i>, will come to stand to him in the relation<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_31" id="Page_31">[31]</a></span>
+of children, while he, who had previously been the
+father’s sister’s son of <i>D</i> and <i>e</i>, will now become
+their father. An exceptional form of the classificatory
+system, in which there is a departure from
+the usual rule limiting a term of relationship to
+members of the same generation, is found to be
+the natural consequence of a social regulation
+which enjoins the marriage of persons belonging to
+different generations.</p>
+
+<p>The next step in the process of demonstrating
+the social significance of the classificatory system of
+relationship will take us to the island of Pentecost
+in the northern New Hebrides. When I recorded
+the system of this island, I found it to have so
+bizarre and complex a character that I could hardly
+believe at first it could be other than the result
+of a ludicrous misunderstanding between myself
+and my seemingly intelligent and trustworthy
+informants. Nevertheless, the records obtained from
+two independent witnesses, and based on separate
+pedigrees, agreed so closely even in the details
+which seemed most improbable that I felt confident
+that the whole construction could not be so mad
+as it seemed. This confidence was strengthened
+by finding that some of its features were of the
+same order of peculiarity as others which I had
+already found in a set of Fijian systems I have yet
+to consider. There were certain features which
+brought relatives separated by two generations into
+one category; the mother’s mother, for instance,
+received the same designation as the elder sister;<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_32" id="Page_32">[32]</a></span>
+the wife’s mother the same as the daughter; the
+wife’s brother the same as the daughter’s son. The
+only conclusion I was then able to formulate was
+that these features were the result of some social
+institution resembling the matrimonial classes of
+Australia, which would have the effect of putting
+persons of alternate generations into one social
+category.</p>
+
+<p>This idea was supported by the system of
+relationship of the Dieri of Australia which
+possesses at least one feature similar to those of
+Pentecost, a fact I happened to remember at the
+time because Mr. N. W. Thomas<a name="FNanchor_13_13" id="FNanchor_13_13"></a><a href="#Footnote_13_13" class="fnanchor">[13]</a> had used it as
+the basis of a <i>reductio ad absurdum</i> argument to
+show that terms of relationship do not express
+kinship. The interest of the Pentecost system
+seemed at first to lie in the possibility thus opened
+of bringing Melanesian into relation with Australian
+sociology, a hope which was the more promising
+in that the people of Pentecost and the Dieri
+resemble one another in the general character of
+their social organisation, each being organised on
+the dual basis with matrilineal descent. When in
+Pentecost, however, I was unable to get further
+than this, and the details of the system remained
+wholly inexplicable.</p>
+
+<p>The meaning of some of the peculiarities of the
+Pentecost system became clear when I reached the
+Banks Islands; they were of the same kind as<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_33" id="Page_33">[33]</a></span>
+those I have already considered as characteristic
+of these islands. When I had discovered the
+dependence of these features upon the marriage of
+a man with the wife of his mother’s brother, it
+became evident that not only these, but certain
+other features of the Pentecost system, were
+capable of being accounted for by this kind of
+marriage. The peculiar features of the Pentecost
+system could be divided into two groups, and all
+the members of one group could be accounted for
+by the marriage with the mother’s brother’s wife.
+All these features had the character in common
+that persons of the generation immediately above
+or below that of the speaker were classed in nomenclature
+with relatives of the same generation.</p>
+
+<p>The other group consisted of terms in which
+persons two generations apart were classed with
+relatives of the same generation. Since the first
+group of correspondences had been explained by
+a marriage between persons one generation apart,
+it should have been obvious that the classing
+together of persons two generations apart might
+have been the result of marriage between persons
+two generations apart. The idea of a society in
+which marriages between those having the status
+of grandparents and grandchildren were habitual
+must have seemed so unlikely that, if it entered
+my mind at all, it must have been at once
+dismissed. The clue only came later from a
+man named John Pantutun, a native of the
+Banks Islands, who had been a teacher in<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_34" id="Page_34">[34]</a></span>
+Pentecost. In talking to me he often mentioned
+in a most instructive manner resemblances and
+differences between the customs of his own island
+and those he had observed in Pentecost. One day
+he let fall the observation with just such a manner
+as that in which we so often accuse neighbouring
+nations of ridiculous or disgusting practices, “O!
+Raga!<a name="FNanchor_14_14" id="FNanchor_14_14"></a><a href="#Footnote_14_14" class="fnanchor">[14]</a> That is the place where they marry their
+granddaughters.” I saw at once that he had given
+me a possible explanation of the peculiar features
+of the system of the island. By that time I had
+forgotten the details of the Pentecost system, and
+it occurred to me that it would be interesting, not
+immediately to consult my note-books, but to
+endeavour to construct a system of relationship
+which would be the result of marriage with a
+granddaughter, and then to see how far my
+theoretical construction agreed with the terminology
+I had recorded. The first question which
+arose was with which kind of granddaughter the
+marriage had been practised, with the son’s
+daughter or with the daughter’s daughter, and this
+was a question readily answered by means of a
+consideration arising out of the nature of the social
+organisation of Pentecost.</p>
+
+<p>The society of this island is organised on the
+dual basis with matrilineal descent in which a man
+must marry a woman of the opposite moiety.
+Diagram 3, in which <i>A</i> and <i>a</i> stand for men and<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_35" id="Page_35">[35]</a></span>
+women of one moiety, and <i>B</i> and <i>b</i> for those of
+the other moiety, shows that a marriage between
+a man and his son’s daughter would be out of the
+question, for it would be a case of <i>A</i> marrying <i>a</i>.
+It was evident that the marriage, the consequences
+of which I had to formulate, must have been one
+in which a man married his daughter’s daughter.</p>
+
+<div>
+<p class="center smcap">Diagram 3.</p>
+
+<div class="figcenter" style="width: 500px;">
+<img src="images/zill_t035a.png" width="500" height="146" alt="" />
+</div></div>
+
+<p>It would take too long to go through the whole
+set of relationships, and I choose only a few
+examples which I illustrate by the following
+diagram:</p>
+
+<div>
+<p class="center smcap">Diagram 4.</p>
+
+<div class="figcenter" style="width: 400px;">
+<img src="images/zill_t035b.png" width="400" height="217" alt="" />
+</div></div>
+
+<p>This diagram shows that if <i>A</i> marries <i>e</i>, <i>c</i>, who
+previous to the marriage had been only the
+daughter of <i>A</i>, now becomes also his wife’s
+mother; and <i>D</i>, who had previously been his
+daughter’s husband, now becomes his wife’s father.
+Similarly, <i>F</i>, who before the new marriage was the<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_36" id="Page_36">[36]</a></span>
+daughter’s son of <i>A</i>, now becomes the brother of his
+wife, while <i>f</i>, his daughter’s daughter, becomes his
+wife’s sister. Lastly, if we assume that it would
+be the elder daughters of the daughter who would
+be married by their grandfathers, <i>e</i>, who before
+the marriage had been the elder sister of <i>F</i> and <i>f</i>,
+now comes through her marriage to occupy the
+position of their mother’s mother.</p>
+
+<p>When, after making these deductions, I examined
+my record of the Pentecost terms, I found
+that its terminology corresponded exactly with
+those which had been deduced. The wife’s mother
+and the daughter were both called <i>nitu</i>. The
+daughter’s husband and the wife’s father were
+both <i>bwaliga</i>. The daughter’s children were
+called <i>mabi</i>, and this term was also used for the
+brother and sister of the wife. Lastly, the mother’s
+mother was found to be classed with the elder
+sister, both being called <i>tuaga</i>.</p>
+
+<p>For the sake of simplicity of demonstration I
+have assumed that a man marries his own daughter’s
+daughter, but through the classificatory principle
+all the features I have described would follow
+equally well if a man married the granddaughter
+of his brother, either in the narrow or the classificatory
+sense. There was one correspondence,
+according to which both the husband’s brother and
+the mother’s father were called <i>sibi</i>, which does not
+follow from the marriage with the own granddaughter,
+but would be the natural result of
+marriage with the daughter’s daughter of the<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_37" id="Page_37">[37]</a></span>
+brother&mdash;<i>i.e.</i>, with a marriage in which <i>e</i> was
+married by <i>A’s</i> brother.</p>
+
+<p>I hope these examples will be sufficient to show
+how a number of features which might otherwise
+seem so absurd as to suggest a system of relationship
+gone mad become natural and intelligible,
+even obvious, if it were once the established
+practice of the people to marry the daughter’s
+daughter of the brother.</p>
+
+<p>Such inquiries as I was able to make confirmed
+the conclusion that the Pentecost marriage was
+with the granddaughter of the brother rather than
+with the daughter of the daughter herself. After
+I had been put on the track of the explanation by
+John Pantutun I had the chance of talking to only
+one native of Pentecost, unfortunately not a very
+good informant. From his evidence it appeared
+that the marriage I had inferred from the system
+of relationship even now occurs in the island, but
+only with the granddaughter of the brother, and
+that marriage with the own granddaughter is
+forbidden. The evidence is not as complete as I
+should like, but it points to the actual existence in
+the island of a peculiar form of marriage from
+which the extraordinary features of its system of
+relationship directly follow.</p>
+
+<p>When I returned to England I found that this
+marriage was not unique, but had been recorded
+among the Dieri of Australia,<a name="FNanchor_15_15" id="FNanchor_15_15"></a><a href="#Footnote_15_15" class="fnanchor">[15]</a> where, as I have
+already mentioned, it is associated with peculiar<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_38" id="Page_38">[38]</a></span>
+features of nomenclature resembling those of
+Pentecost.</p>
+
+<p>I must again ask, how are you going to explain
+the features of the Pentecost system psychologically?
+What psychological resemblance is there
+between a grandmother and a sister, between
+a mother-in-law and a daughter, between a
+brother-in-law and a grandfather? Apart from
+some special form of social relationship, there can
+be no such resemblances. Further, if there were
+such psychological resemblances, why should we
+know of their influence on nomenclature only in
+Pentecost and among the Dieri? The features to
+be explained are definitely known to exist in only
+two systems of the world, and it is only among the
+peoples who use these two systems that we have
+any evidence of that extraordinary form of marriage
+of which they would be the natural consequence.</p>
+
+
+
+<p class="tb">I have now tried to show the dependence of
+special features of the classificatory system of
+relationship upon special social conditions. If I
+have succeeded in this I shall have gone far towards
+the accomplishment of one of the main purposes of
+these lectures. They have, however, another purpose,
+viz., to inquire how far we are justified in
+inferring the existence of a social institution of
+which we have no direct evidence when we find
+features of the nomenclature of relationship which
+would result from such an institution. I have now<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_39" id="Page_39">[39]</a></span>
+to enter upon this part of my subject, and I think
+it will be instructive to take you at once to a
+case in which I believe that an extraordinary form
+of marriage can be established as a feature of the
+past history of a people, although at the present
+moment any direct evidence for the existence of
+such a marriage is wholly lacking.</p>
+
+<p>When I was in the interior of Viti Levu, one of
+the Fijian islands, I discovered the existence of
+certain systems of relationship which differed
+fundamentally from the only Fijian systems previously
+known. Any features referable to the
+cross-cousin marriage were completely absent, but
+in their place were others, one of which I have
+already mentioned, which brought into one class
+relatives two generations apart. The father’s
+father received the same designation as the elder
+brother, and the son’s wife was called by the same
+term as the mother. As I have already said, my
+first conclusion was that these terms were the
+survivals of forms of social organisation resembling
+the matrimonial classes of Australia, but as soon as
+I had worked out the explanation of the Pentecost
+system, it became evident that the Fijian peculiarities
+would have to be explained on similar lines.
+At first I thought it probable that the difference
+between the Pentecost and Fijian systems was due
+to the difference in the mode of descent in the
+two places. For long I tried to work out schemes
+whereby a change from the matrilineal descent of
+Pentecost to the patrilineal condition of Fiji could<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_40" id="Page_40">[40]</a></span>
+have had as one of its consequences a change from
+a correspondence in nomenclature between the
+mother’s mother and the elder sister to one in
+which the common nomenclature applied to the
+father’s father and the elder brother. It is an
+interesting example of the strength of a preconceived
+opinion, and of some measure of the belief
+in the impossibility of customs not practised by
+ourselves, that for more than two years I failed to
+see an obvious alternative explanation, although I
+returned to the subject again and again. The clue
+came at last from the system of Buin, in the island
+of Bougainville, recorded by Dr. Thurnwald.<a name="FNanchor_16_16" id="FNanchor_16_16"></a><a href="#Footnote_16_16" class="fnanchor">[16]</a> The
+nomenclature of this system agreed with that of
+inland Fiji in having one term for the father’s
+father and the elder brother, but since the people
+of Buin still practice matrilineal descent, it was
+evident that I had been on a false track in
+supposing the correspondence to have been the
+result of a change in the mode of descent. Once
+turned into a fresh path by the necessity of showing
+how the correspondence could have arisen out
+of a matrilineal condition, it was not long before
+I saw how it might be accounted for in a very
+different way. I saw that the correspondence
+would be the natural result of a form of social
+organisation in which it was the practice to marry
+a grandmother, viz., the wife of the father’s
+father. Not only did this form of marriage explain
+the second peculiar feature of the Fijian system,<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_41" id="Page_41">[41]</a></span>
+viz., the classing of the son’s wife with the mother,
+but it would also account for several features of the
+Buin system which would otherwise be difficult to
+understand.</p>
+
+<div>
+<p class="center smcap">Diagram 5.</p>
+
+<div class="figcenter" style="width: 400px;">
+<img src="images/zill_t041.png" width="400" height="144" alt="" />
+</div></div>
+
+<p>If, as shown in Diagram 5, <i>E</i> marries <i>b</i>, the
+wife or widow of his father’s father, he, who had
+previously been the elder brother of <i>F</i> and <i>f</i>, now
+comes to occupy the position of their father’s
+father, while <i>d</i>, the mother of <i>E</i>, will now come to
+stand to him in the relationship of son’s wife.</p>
+
+<p>I need only mention here one of the features of
+the Buin system which can be accounted for by
+means of this marriage. The term <i>mamai</i> is used,
+not only for the elder sister and for the elder
+brother’s wife, but it is also applied to the
+father’s mother; that is, the wife of the elder
+brother is designated by the same term as the wife
+of the father’s father, exactly as must happen if
+<i>E</i> marries <i>b</i>, the wife of his father’s father. A
+number of extraordinary features from two Melanesian
+islands collected by two independent workers
+fit into a coherent scheme if they have been the
+result of a marriage in which a man gives one of
+his wives to his son’s son during his life, or in
+which this woman is taken to wife by her husband’s
+grandson when she becomes a widow. If the<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_42" id="Page_42">[42]</a></span>
+practice were ever sufficiently habitual to become
+the basis of the system of relationship, we can be
+confident that it is the former of these two
+alternatives with which we have to do.</p>
+
+<p>If you are still so under the domination of ideas
+derived from your own social surroundings that you
+cannot believe in such a marriage, I would remind
+you that there is definite evidence from the Banks
+Islands that men used to hand over wives to their
+sisters’ sons. It is not taking us so much into the
+unknown as it might appear to suppose that they
+once also gave their wives to their sons’ sons.</p>
+
+<p>I have taken this case somewhat out of its proper
+place in my argument because the evidence is so
+closely connected with that by means of which I
+have shown the relation between features of
+systems of relationship and peculiar forms of
+marriage in Melanesia. I have now to return to
+the more sober task of considering how far we are
+justified in inferring the former existence of
+marriage institutions when we find features of
+systems of relationship of which they would have
+been the natural consequence. It is evident that,
+whenever we find such a feature as common
+nomenclature for a grandmother and a sister or
+for a cross-cousin and a parent, it should suggest
+to us the possibility of such marriage regulations
+as those of Pentecost and the Banks Islands.
+But such common designations might have arisen
+in some other way, and in order to establish the
+existence of such forms of marriage in the past<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_43" id="Page_43">[43]</a></span>
+history of the people, we must have criteria to
+guide us when we are considering whether a given
+feature of the terminology of relationship is or is
+not a survival of a marriage institution.</p>
+
+<p>I will return to the cross-cousin marriage for my
+examples. The task before us is to inquire how
+far such features of relationship as exist in Fiji,
+Anaiteum or Guadalcanar, in conjunction with the
+cross-cousin marriage, will justify us in inferring
+the former existence of this form of marriage in
+places where it is not now practised.</p>
+
+<p>If there be found among any people all the
+characteristic features of a coastal Fijian or of an
+Anaiteum system, I think few will be found to
+doubt the former existence of the cross-cousin
+marriage. It would seem almost inconceivable that
+there should ever have existed any other conditions,
+whether social or psychological, which could have
+produced this special combination of peculiar uses
+of terms of relationship. It is when some only of
+these features are present that there will arise any
+serious doubt whether they are to be regarded as
+survivals of the former existence of the cross-cousin
+marriage.</p>
+
+<p>One consideration I must point out at once.
+Certain of the features which follow from the
+cross-cousin marriage may be the result of another
+marriage regulation. In some parts of the world
+there exists a custom of exchanging brothers and
+sisters, so that, when a man marries a woman, his
+sister marries his wife’s brother. As the result of<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_44" id="Page_44">[44]</a></span>
+this custom the mother’s brother and the father’s
+sister’s husband will come to be one and the same
+person, and the father’s sister will become also the
+mother’s brother’s wife.</p>
+
+<p>This form of marriage exists among the western
+people of Torres Straits,<a name="FNanchor_17_17" id="FNanchor_17_17"></a><a href="#Footnote_17_17" class="fnanchor">[17]</a> and is accompanied by
+features of the system of relationship which would
+follow from the practice. The mother’s brother is
+classed with the father’s sister’s husband as <i>wad-wam</i>,
+but there is an alternative term for the
+father’s sister’s husband and there was no evidence
+that the mother’s brother’s wife was classed with
+the father’s sister. It seemed possible that the
+classing together of the mother’s brother and the
+father’s sister’s husband was not a constant feature
+of the system of relationship, but only occurred in
+cases where the custom of exchange had made it
+necessary. The case, however, is sufficient to show
+that two of the correspondences which follow
+from the cross-cousin marriage may be the result
+of another kind of marriage. If we accept the
+social causation of such features and find these
+correspondences alone, it would still remain an
+open question whether they were the results of the
+custom of exchange or of the marriage of cross-cousins.
+The custom of exchange, however, is
+wholly incapable of accounting for the use of a
+common term for the mother’s brother and the
+father-in-law, for the father’s sister and the mother-in-law,
+or for cross-cousins and brothers- or sisters-<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_45" id="Page_45">[45]</a></span>in-law.
+It is only when these correspondences
+are present that there will be any decisive reason
+for inferring the former existence of the cross-cousin
+marriage.</p>
+
+<p>The first conclusion, then, is that some of the
+features found in association with the cross-cousin
+marriage are of greater value than others in
+enabling us to infer the former existence of the
+cross-cousin marriage where it no longer exists.
+Next, the probability that such features as I am
+considering are due to the former presence of the
+cross-cousin marriage will be greatly heightened if
+this form of marriage should exist among people
+with allied cultures. An instance from Melanesia
+will bring out this point clearly.</p>
+
+<p>In the island of Florida in the Solomons it is
+clear that the cross-cousin marriage is not now the
+custom, and I could discover no tradition of its
+existence in the past. One feature, however, of
+the system of relationship is just such as would
+follow from the cross-cousin marriage. Both the
+wife’s mother and the wife of the mother’s brother
+are called <i>vungo</i>.</p>
+
+<p>Florida is not only near Guadalcanar where the
+cross-cousin marriage is practised, (the two islands
+are within sight of one another), but their cultures
+are very closely related. In such a case the probability
+that the single feature of the Florida system
+which follows from the cross-cousin marriage has
+actually had that form of marriage as its antecedent
+becomes very great, and this conclusion<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_46" id="Page_46">[46]</a></span>
+becomes still more probable when we find that in a
+third island, Ysabel, closely allied in culture both
+to Florida and Guadalcanar, there is a clear
+tradition of the former practice of the cross-cousin
+marriage although it is now only an occasional
+event.</p>
+
+<p>Again, in one district of San Cristoval in the
+Solomons the term <i>fongo</i> is used both for the
+father-in-law and the father’s sister’s husband, and
+<i>kafongo</i> similarly denotes both the mother-in-law
+and the mother’s brother’s wife. This island differs
+more widely from Guadalcanar in culture than
+Florida or Ysabel, but the evidence for the former
+existence of the marriage in these islands gives
+us more confidence in ascribing the common
+designations of San Cristoval to the cross-cousin
+marriage than would have been the case if
+these common designations had been the only
+examples of such possible survivals in the Solomons.
+Speaking in more general terms, one may say that
+the probability that the common nomenclature for
+two relatives is the survival of a form of marriage
+becomes the greater, the more similar is the general
+culture in which the supposed survival is found
+to that of a people who practise this form of
+marriage. The case will be greatly strengthened if
+there should be intermediate links between the
+supposed survival and the still living institution.</p>
+
+<p>When we find a feature such as that of the
+Florida system among a people none of whose allies
+in culture practise the cross-cousin marriage, the<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_47" id="Page_47">[47]</a></span>
+matter must be far more doubtful. In the
+present state of our knowledge we are only justified
+in making such a feature the basis of a working
+hypothesis to stimulate research and encourage us
+to look for other evidence in the neighbourhood of
+the place where the feature has been found. Our
+knowledge of the social institutions of the world is
+not yet so complete that we can afford to neglect
+any clue which may guide our steps.</p>
+
+<p>I propose briefly to consider two regions, South
+India and North America, to show how they differ
+from this point of view.</p>
+
+<p>The terms of relationship used in three<a name="FNanchor_18_18" id="FNanchor_18_18"></a><a href="#Footnote_18_18" class="fnanchor">[18]</a> of the
+chief languages spoken by the people of South
+India are exactly such as would follow from the
+cross-cousin marriage. In Tamil<a name="FNanchor_19_19" id="FNanchor_19_19"></a><a href="#Footnote_19_19" class="fnanchor">[19]</a> the mother’s
+brother, the father’s sister’s husband, and the
+father of both husband and wife are all called <i>mama</i>,
+and this term is also used for these relatives in
+Telegu. In Canarese the mother’s brother and the
+father-in-law are both called <i>mava</i>, but the father’s
+sister’s husband fails to fall into line and is classed
+with the father’s brother.</p>
+
+<p>Similarly, the father’s sister, the mother’s
+brother’s wife and the mother of both wife and<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_48" id="Page_48">[48]</a></span>
+husband are called <i>atta</i> in Telegu and <i>atte</i> in
+Canarese, Tamil here spoiling the harmony by
+having one term, <i>attai</i>, for the father’s sister and
+another, <i>mami</i>, for the mother’s brother’s wife
+and the mother-in-law. Since, however, the Tamil
+term for the father’s sister is only another form of
+the Telegu and Canarese words for the combined
+relationships, the exception only serves to
+strengthen the agreement with the condition which
+would follow from the cross-cousin marriage.</p>
+
+<p>The South Indian terms for cross-cousin and
+brother- and sister-in-law are complicated by the
+presence of distinctions dependent on the sex and
+relative age of those who use them, but these complications
+do not disguise how definitely the
+terminology would follow from the cross-cousin
+marriage. Thus, to take only two examples: a
+Tamil man applies the term <i>maittuni</i> to the
+daughters of his mother’s brother and of his
+father’s sister as well as to his brother’s wife and
+his wife’s sister, and a Canarese woman uses one
+term for the sons of her mother’s brother and of
+her father’s sister, for her husband’s brother and
+her sister’s husband.</p>
+
+<p>So far as we know, the cross-cousin marriage is
+not now practised by the vast majority of those
+who use these terms of relationship. If the
+terminology has been the result of the cross-cousin
+marriage, it is only a survival of an ancient social
+condition in which this form of marriage was
+habitual. That it is such a survival, however,<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_49" id="Page_49">[49]</a></span>
+becomes certain when we find the cross-cousin
+marriage still persisting in many parts of South
+India, and that among one such people at least,
+the Todas,<a name="FNanchor_20_20" id="FNanchor_20_20"></a><a href="#Footnote_20_20" class="fnanchor">[20]</a> this form of marriage is associated with
+a system of relationship agreeing both in its
+structure and linguistic character with that of the
+Tamils. I have elsewhere<a name="FNanchor_21_21" id="FNanchor_21_21"></a><a href="#Footnote_21_21" class="fnanchor">[21]</a> brought together the
+evidence for the former prevalence of this form
+of marriage in India, but even if there were no
+evidence, the terminology of relationship is so
+exactly such as would follow from the cross-cousin
+marriage that we can be certain that this form of
+marriage was once the habitual custom of the
+people of South India.</p>
+
+<p>While South India thus provides a good example
+of a case in which we can confidently infer the
+former existence of the cross-cousin marriage from
+the terminology of relationship, the evidence from
+North America is of a kind which gives to such an
+inference only a certain degree of probability. In
+this case it is necessary to suspend judgment and
+await further evidence before coming to a positive
+conclusion.</p>
+
+<p>I will begin with a very doubtful feature which
+comes from an Athapascan tribe, the Red Knives<a name="FNanchor_22_22" id="FNanchor_22_22"></a><a href="#Footnote_22_22" class="fnanchor">[22]</a>
+(probably that now called Yellow Knife). These
+people use a common term, <i>set-so</i>, for the father’s
+sister, the mother’s brother’s wife, the wife’s<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_50" id="Page_50">[50]</a></span>
+mother and the husband’s mother, a usage which
+would be the necessary result of the cross-cousin
+marriage. Against this, however, is to be put the
+fact that there are three different terms for the
+corresponding male relatives, the two kinds of
+father-in-law being called <i>seth-a</i>, the mother’s
+brother <i>ser-a</i>, and the father’s sister’s husband <i>sel-the-ne</i>.
+Further, the term <i>set-so</i>, the common use
+of which for the aunt and mother-in-law seems to
+indicate the cross-cousin marriage, is also applied
+by a man to his brother’s wife and his wife’s sister,
+features which cannot possibly be the result of this
+form of marriage. These features show, either
+that the terminology has arisen in some other way,
+or that there has been some additional social
+factor in operation which has greatly modified
+a nomenclature derived from the cross-cousin
+marriage.</p>
+
+<p>A stronger case is presented by the terminology
+of three branches of the Cree tribe, also recorded by
+Morgan. In all three systems, one term, <i>ne-sis</i> or
+<i>nee-sis</i>, is used for the mother’s brother, the father’s
+sister’s husband, the wife’s father and the husband’s
+father; while the term <i>nis-si-goos</i> applies to
+the father’s sister, the mother’s brother’s wife and
+the two kinds of mother-in-law. These usages are
+exactly such as would follow from the cross-cousin
+marriage. The terms for the sister’s son of a man
+and the brother’s son of a woman, however, differ
+from those used for the son-in-law, and there is also
+no correspondence between the terms for cross-<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_51" id="Page_51">[51]</a></span>cousin
+and any kind of brother- or sister-in-law.
+The case points more definitely to the cross-cousin
+marriage than in the case of the Red Knives, but
+yet lacks the completeness which would allow us
+to make the inference with confidence.</p>
+
+<p>The Assiniboin have a common term, <i>me-toh-we</i>,
+used for the father’s sister, the mother’s
+brother’s wife and the two kinds of mother-in-law,
+and also a common term, <i>me-nake-she</i>, for the
+mother’s brother and the father’s sister’s husband,
+but the latter differs from the word, <i>me-to-ga-she</i>,
+used for the father of husband or wife. The case
+here is decidedly stronger than among the Red
+Knives, but is less complete than among the
+Crees.</p>
+
+<p>Among a number of branches of the Dakotas the
+evidence is of a different kind, being derived from
+similar nomenclature for the cross-cousin and
+certain kinds of brother- and sister-in-law. Morgan<a name="FNanchor_23_23" id="FNanchor_23_23"></a><a href="#Footnote_23_23" class="fnanchor">[23]</a>
+has recorded eight systems, all of which show the
+features in question, but I will consider here only
+that of the Isauntie or Santee Dakotas, which was
+collected for him by the Rev. S. R. Riggs. Riggs<a name="FNanchor_24_24" id="FNanchor_24_24"></a><a href="#Footnote_24_24" class="fnanchor">[24]</a>
+and Dorsey<a name="FNanchor_25_25" id="FNanchor_25_25"></a><a href="#Footnote_25_25" class="fnanchor">[25]</a> have given independent accounts of
+this system which are far less complete than
+that given by Morgan, but agree with it in all
+essentials.</p>
+
+<p>In this system a man calls the son of his mother’s<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_52" id="Page_52">[52]</a></span>
+brother or of his father’s sister <i>ta-hang-she</i> or
+<i>tang-hang-she</i>, while his wife’s brother and his
+sister’s husband are <i>ta-hang</i> or <i>tang-hang</i>.
+Similarly, a woman calls her cross-cousin <i>she-chay-she</i>,
+while her husband’s brother and her sister’s
+husband are called <i>she-chay</i>. The terms for
+brothers-in-law are thus the same as those for cross-cousins
+with the omission of the suffix <i>she</i>. One
+of these resemblances, that when a woman is speaking,
+has been cited by Professor Kroeber<a name="FNanchor_26_26" id="FNanchor_26_26"></a><a href="#Footnote_26_26" class="fnanchor">[26]</a> as an
+example of the psychological causation of such
+features of relationship as I am considering in these
+lectures. He rejects its dependence on the cross-cousin
+marriage and refers the resemblance to the
+psychological similarity between a woman’s cousin
+and her brother-in-law in that both are collateral
+relatives alike in sex, of the same generation as the
+speaker, but different from her in sex.</p>
+
+<p>As we have seen, however, the Dakota correspondence
+is not an isolated occurrence, but fits in
+with a number of other features of the systems of
+cognate peoples to form a body of evidence pointing
+to the former prevalence of the cross-cousin
+marriage.</p>
+
+<p>There is also indirect evidence leading in the
+same direction. In Melanesia there is reason to
+believe that the cross-cousin marriage stands in a
+definite relation to another form of marriage, that
+with the wife of the mother’s brother. If there
+should be evidence for the former existence of<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_53" id="Page_53">[53]</a></span>
+this marriage in North America, it would increase
+the probability in favour of the cross-cousin
+marriage.</p>
+
+<p>Among a number of peoples, some of whom
+form part of the Sioux, including the Minnitarees,
+Crows, Choctas, Creeks, Cherokees and Pawnees,
+cross-cousins are classed with parents and children
+exactly as in the Banks Islands, and exactly as in
+those islands, it is the son of the father’s sister who
+is classed with the father, and the children of the
+mother’s brother who are classed with sons or
+daughters. Further, among the Pawnees the wife
+of the mother’s brother is classed with the wife,
+a feature also associated with the peculiar nomenclature
+for cross-cousins in the Banks Islands. The
+agreement is so close as to make it highly probable
+that the American features of relationship have
+been derived from a social institution of the same
+kind as that to which the Melanesian features are
+due, and that it was once the custom of these
+American peoples to marry the wife of the
+mother’s brother. Here, as in the case of the cross-cousin
+marriage itself, the case rests entirely upon
+the terminology of relationship, but we cannot
+ignore the association in neighbouring parts of
+North America of features of relationship which
+would be the natural consequence of two forms of
+marriage which are known to be associated together
+elsewhere.</p>
+
+<p>I am indebted to Miss Freire-Marreco for the
+information that the Tewa of Hano, a Pueblo<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_54" id="Page_54">[54]</a></span>
+tribe, call the father’s sister’s son <i>tada</i>, a term
+otherwise used for the father, thus suggesting that
+they also may once have practised marriage with
+the wife of the mother’s brother. The use of this
+term, however, is only one example of a practice
+whereby all the males of the father’s clan are called
+<i>tada</i>, irrespective of age and generation. The
+common nomenclature for the father and the
+father’s sister’s son among the Tewa thus differs
+in character from the apparently similar nomenclature
+of the Banks Islands and cannot have been
+determined directly, perhaps not even remotely,
+by marriage with the wife of the mother’s brother.
+This raises the question whether the nomenclature
+of the Sioux has not arisen out of a practice similar
+to that of the Tewa. The terms for other relatives
+recorded by Morgan show some evidence of the
+widely generalised use of the Tewa, but such a
+use cannot account for the classing of the wife of
+the mother’s brother with the wife which occurs
+among the Pawnees. Nevertheless, the Tewa
+practice should keep us alive to the possibility that
+the Sioux nomenclature may depend on some social
+condition different from that which has been
+effective in the Banks Islands in spite of the close
+resemblance between the two.</p>
+
+<p>The case for the former existence of the cross-cousin
+marriage will be much strengthened if this
+form of marriage should occur elsewhere in North
+America. So far as I am aware, the only people
+among whom it has been recorded are the Haidahs<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_55" id="Page_55">[55]</a></span>
+of Queen Charlotte Island.<a name="FNanchor_27_27" id="FNanchor_27_27"></a><a href="#Footnote_27_27" class="fnanchor">[27]</a> It is a far cry from
+this outpost of North American culture to Dakota,
+but it may be noted that it is among the Crees
+who formerly lived in the intermediate region of
+Manitoba and Assiniboia that the traces of the
+cross-cousin marriage are most definite. This mode
+of distribution of the peoples whose terminology
+of relationship bears evidence of the cross-cousin
+marriage suggests that other intermediate links
+may yet be found. Though the existing evidence
+is inconclusive, it should be sufficient to stimulate
+a search for other evidence which may make it
+possible to decide whether or no the cross-cousin
+marriage was once a widespread practice in North
+America.</p>
+
+<p>I can only consider one other kind of marriage
+here. The discovery of so remarkable a union as
+that with the daughter’s daughter in Pentecost
+and the evidence pointing to a still more remarkable
+marriage between those having the status of
+grandparent and grandchild in Fiji and Buin have
+naturally led me to look for similar evidence
+elsewhere in Melanesia. Though there is nothing
+conclusive, conditions are to be found here and
+there which suggest the former existence of such
+marriages.</p>
+
+<p>When I was in the Solomons I met a native of
+the Trobriand Islands, who told me that among<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_56" id="Page_56">[56]</a></span>
+his people the term <i>tabu</i> was applied both to grandparents
+and to the father’s sister’s child. I went
+into the whole subject as fully as was possible with
+only one witness, but in spite of his obvious intelligence
+and good faith, I remained doubtful whether
+the information was correct. The feature in question,
+however, occurs in the list of Trobriand terms
+drawn up for Dr. Seligmann<a name="FNanchor_28_28" id="FNanchor_28_28"></a><a href="#Footnote_28_28" class="fnanchor">[28]</a> by Mr. Bellamy, and
+with this double warrant it must be accepted. It
+is a feature which would follow from marriage
+with the daughter’s daughter, for by this marriage
+one who was previously a father’s sister’s daughter
+becomes the wife of a grandfather and thereby
+attains the status of a grandparent. The feature
+exists alone, and, further, it is combined with
+other applications of the term which deprive it of
+some of its significance; nevertheless, the fact that
+a peculiar and exceptional feature of a Melanesian
+system of relationship is such as would follow
+naturally from a form of marriage which is practised
+in another part of Melanesia cannot be passed
+over. Standing alone, it would be wholly insufficient
+to justify the conclusion that the marriage
+with the daughter’s daughter was ever prevalent
+among the Massim, but in place of expressing a
+dogmatic denial, let us look for other features of
+Massim sociology which may have been the results
+of such a marriage.</p>
+
+<p>In Wagawaga<a name="FNanchor_29_29" id="FNanchor_29_29"></a><a href="#Footnote_29_29" class="fnanchor">[29]</a> there is a peculiar term, <i>warihi</i>,<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_57" id="Page_57">[57]</a></span>
+which is used by men for other men of their own
+generation and social group, but the term is also
+applied by an old man or woman to one of a
+younger generation. Again, in Tubetube<a name="FNanchor_30_30" id="FNanchor_30_30"></a><a href="#Footnote_30_30" class="fnanchor">[30]</a> the term
+for a husband, <i>taubara</i>, is also a term for an old
+man, and the term for the wife is also applied to
+an old woman. These usages may be nothing more
+than indications of respect for a husband or wife, or
+of some mechanism which brought those differing
+widely in age into one social category, but with the
+clue provided by the Trobriand term of relationship
+it becomes possible, though even now only possible,
+that the Wagawaga and Tubetube customs may
+have arisen out of a social condition in which it was
+customary to have great disparity of age between
+husbands and wives, and social relations between
+old and young following from such disparity in the
+age of consorts.</p>
+
+<p>In Tubetube there is yet another piece of
+evidence. Mr. Field<a name="FNanchor_31_31" id="FNanchor_31_31"></a><a href="#Footnote_31_31" class="fnanchor">[31]</a> has recorded the existence
+in this island of three named categories of persons,
+two of which comprise relatives with whom
+marriage is prohibited, while the third groups
+together those with whom marriage is allowed.
+The grandparents and grandchildren are included
+in one of the two prohibited classes, so that we can
+be confident that marriage between these relatives
+does not now occur. The point to which I call
+your attention is that the class of relative with<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_58" id="Page_58">[58]</a></span>
+whom marriage is allowed is called <i>kasoriegogoli</i>.
+<i>Li</i> is the third person pronominal suffix, and we do
+not know the meaning of <i>kasorie</i>, but <i>goga</i> is the
+term used in Wagawaga and Wedau for the grandparents,
+its place being taken by the usual Melanesian
+term <i>tubu</i> in Tubetube. The term <i>kasoriegogoli</i>
+applied to marriageable relatives thus contains
+as one of its constituent elements a word
+which is probably the ancient term for grandparent
+in the island, since it is still used in this sense in
+the closely allied societies of the mainland.</p>
+
+<p>We have thus a number of independent facts
+among the Massim, all of which would be the natural
+outcome of marriage between persons of alternate
+generations. To no one of them standing alone
+could much importance be attached, but taken in
+conjunction, they ought at least to suggest the
+possibility of such a marriage, a possibility which
+becomes the more probable when we consider that
+the Massim show clear evidence of the dual
+organisation of society with matrilineal descent
+which is associated with the granddaughter marriage
+of Pentecost and the Dieri of Australia.
+It adds to the weight of the evidence that indications
+of this peculiar form of marriage should be
+found among a people whose social organisation so
+closely resembles that in which the marriages
+between persons of alternate generations elsewhere
+occur.</p>
+
+<p>I have no time for other examples. I hope to
+have shown that there are cases in which it is<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_59" id="Page_59">[59]</a></span>
+possible to infer with certainty the ancient existence
+of forms of marriage from the survival of
+their results in the terminology of relationship. In
+other cases, differences of culture or the absence of
+intermediate links make it unjustifiable to infer the
+ancient existence of the forms of marriage from
+which features of terminology might be derived.
+Other cases lie between the two, the confidence
+with which a form of marriage can be inferred
+varying with the degree of likeness of culture,
+the distance in space, and the presence or absence
+of other features of culture which may be related
+to the form of marriage in question. Even in
+the cases, however, where the inference is most
+doubtful, we have no right dogmatically to deny
+the origin of the terminology of relationship in
+social conditions, but should keep each example
+before an open mind, to guide and stimulate
+inquiry in a region where ethnologists have till now
+only scratched the surface covering a rich mine of
+knowledge.</p>
+
+
+
+<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_60" id="Page_60">[60]</a></span></p>
+
+
+
+
+<h2>LECTURE III</h2>
+
+
+<p>Thus far in these lectures I have been content to
+demonstrate the dependence of the terminology of
+relationship upon forms of marriage. In spending
+so much time upon this aspect of my subject I fear
+that I may have been helping to strengthen a very
+general misconception, for it is frequently supposed
+that the sole aim of those who think as I
+do is to explain systems of relationship by their
+origin in forms of marriage. Marriage is only one
+of the social institutions which have moulded the
+terminology of relationship. It is, however, so
+fundamental a social institution that it is difficult
+to get far away from it in any argument which
+deals with social organisation. In now passing to
+other examples of the dependence of the terminology
+of relationship upon social conditions, I
+begin with one in which features of this terminology
+have come about, not as the result of forms of
+marriage, but of an attitude towards social regulations
+connected with marriage. The instance I
+have now to consider is closely allied to one which
+Professor Kroeber has used as his pattern of the
+psychological causation of the terminology of
+relationship.</p>
+
+<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_61" id="Page_61">[61]</a></span></p>
+
+<p>Both in Polynesia and Melanesia it is not infrequent
+for the father-in-law to be classed with the
+father, the mother-in-law with the mother, the
+brother-in-law with the brother, and the sister-in-law
+with the sister. The Oceanic terminology of
+relationship has two features which enable us to
+study the exact nature of this process in more detail
+than is possible with our own system. Oceanic
+languages often distinguish carefully between
+different kinds of brother- and sister-in-law, and,
+if it be found that it is only certain kinds of brother- or
+sister-in-law who are classed with the brother or
+sister, we may thereby obtain a clue to the nature
+of the process whereby the classing has come about.
+Secondly, Oceanic terminology usually distinguishes
+relationships between men or between women from
+those between persons of different sex, and there
+is a feature of the terminology employed when
+brothers- or sisters-in-law are classed with brothers
+or sisters in Oceania which throws much light on
+the process whereby this common nomenclature
+has come into use.</p>
+
+<p>The first point to be noticed in the Oceanic
+nomenclature of relationship is that not all
+brothers- and sisters-in-law are classed with
+brothers and sisters, but only those of different sex.
+Thus, in Merlav, in the Banks Islands, it is only
+the wife’s sister and a man’s brother’s wife who
+are classed with the sister, and the husband’s
+brother and a woman’s sister’s husband who are
+classed with the brother, while there are special<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_62" id="Page_62">[62]</a></span>
+terms for other categories of relative whom we
+include under the designations brother- and sister-in-law.
+Similar conditions are general throughout
+Melanesia. If, as Professor Kroeber has supposed,
+the classing of the brother-in-law with the brother
+be due to the psychological similarity of the
+relationships, we ought to be able to discover why
+this similarity should be greater between persons
+of different sex than between persons of the same
+sex.</p>
+
+<p>If now we study our case from the Banks Islands
+more closely and compare the social conditions in
+Merlav with those of other islands of the group,
+we find definite evidence, which it will not now
+be possible to consider in detail, showing that
+sexual relations were formerly allowed between a
+man and his wife’s sisters and his brothers’ wives,
+and that there is a definite association between the
+classing of these relatives with the sister and the
+cessation of such sexual relations. If such people
+as the Melanesians wish to emphasise in the
+strongest manner possible the impropriety of
+sexual relations between a man and the sisters of
+his wife, there is no way in which they can do it
+more effectually than by classing these relatives
+with a sister. To a Melanesian, as to other people
+of rude culture, the use of a term otherwise applied
+to a sister carries with it such deeply-seated associations
+as to put sexual relations absolutely out of
+the question. There is a large body of evidence
+from southern Melanesia which suggests strongly,<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_63" id="Page_63">[63]</a></span>
+if not conclusively, that the common nomenclature
+I am now considering has arisen out of the social
+need for emphasising the impropriety of relations
+which were once habitual among the people.</p>
+
+<p>The second feature of Melanesian terminology
+which I have mentioned helps us to understand
+how the common nomenclature has come about.
+In most of the Melanesian cases in which a wife’s
+sister is denoted by a term otherwise used for a
+sister, or a husband’s brother by a term otherwise
+used for a brother, the term employed is one
+which is normally used between those of the same
+sex. Thus, a man does not apply to his wife’s
+sister the term which he himself uses for his sister,
+but one which would be used by a woman of her
+sister. In other words, a man uses for his wife’s
+sister the term which is used for this relative by
+his wife. This shows us how the common nomenclature
+may have come into use. It suggests that
+as sexual relations with the wife’s sister became no
+longer orthodox, a man came to apply to this
+woman the word with which he was already
+familiar as a term for this relative from the mouth
+of his wife. The special feature of Melanesian
+nomenclature according to which terms of relationship
+vary with the sex of the speaker here helps
+us to understand how the common nomenclature
+arose. The process is one in which psychological
+factors evidently play an important part, but these
+psychological factors are themselves the outcome
+of a social process, viz., the change from a con<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_64" id="Page_64">[64]</a></span>dition
+of sexual communism to one in which sexual
+relations are restricted to the partners of a marriage.
+Such psychological factors as come into
+action are only intermediate links in a chain of
+causation in which the two ends are definitely social
+processes or events, or, perhaps more correctly,
+psychological concomitants of intermediate links
+which are themselves social events. We should be
+shutting our eyes to obvious features of these
+Melanesian customs if we refused to recognise that
+the terminology of relationship here “reflects”
+sociology.</p>
+
+<p>This leads me to question for a moment whether
+it may not be the same with that custom of our
+own society which Professor Kroeber has taken as
+his example of the psychological causation of the
+terminology of relationship. Is it as certain as
+Professor Kroeber supposes that the classing of the
+brother-in-law with the brother, or of the sister-in-law
+with the sister, among ourselves does not
+reflect sociology? We know that there are social
+factors at work among us which give to these
+relationships, and especially to that of wife’s sister,
+a very great importance. If instead of stating
+dogmatically that this feature of our own terminology
+is due to the psychological similarity of the
+relationships, Professor Kroeber’s mind had been
+open even to the possibility of the working of social
+causes, I think he might have been led to inquire
+more closely into the distribution and exact character
+of the practice in question. He might have<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_65" id="Page_65">[65]</a></span>
+been led to see that we have here a problem for
+exact inquiry. Such a custom among ourselves
+must certainly own a cause different from that to
+which I have ascribed the Melanesian practice, but
+is it certain that there is no social practice among
+ourselves which would lead to the classing of the
+wife’s sister with the sister and the sister’s husband
+of a woman with the brother? I will only point
+to the practice of marrying the deceased wife’s
+sister, and content myself with the remark that I
+should be surprised if there were any general
+tendency to class these relatives together by a
+people among whom this form of marriage is the
+orthodox and habitual custom.</p>
+
+<p>Till now I have been dealing with relatively small
+variations of the classificatory system. The varieties
+I have so far considered are such as would arise
+out of a common system if in one place there came
+into vogue the cross-cousin marriage, in another
+place marriage with the wife of the mother’s
+brother, in another that with the granddaughter of
+the brother or with the wife of the grandfather,
+and in yet other places combinations of these forms
+of marriage. I have now to consider whether it is
+possible to refer the main varieties of the classificatory
+system to social conditions; as an example
+with which to begin, I choose one which is so
+definite that it attracted the attention of Morgan,
+viz., the variety of the classificatory system which
+Morgan called “Malayan”. It is now generally
+recognised that this term was badly chosen. The<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_66" id="Page_66">[66]</a></span>
+variety so called was known to Morgan through the
+terminology of the Hawaiian Islands, and as the
+system of these islands was not only the first to be
+recorded, but is also that of which even now we have
+the most complete record, I propose to use it as the
+pattern and to speak of the Hawaiian system where
+Morgan spoke of the Malayan. If now we compare
+the Hawaiian system with the forms of the classificatory
+system found in other parts of Oceania, in
+Australia, India, Africa or America, we find that
+it is characterised by its extreme simplicity and by
+the fewness of its terms. Distinctions such as those
+between the father’s brother and the mother’s
+brother, between the father’s sister and the
+mother’s sister, and between the children of
+brothers or of sisters and the children of brother and
+sister, distinctions which are so generally present
+in the more usual forms of the classificatory system,
+are here completely absent. The problem before
+us is to discover whether the absence of these distinctions
+can be referred to any social factors. If
+not, we may be driven to suppose that there is
+something in the structure of the Polynesian mind
+which leads the Hawaiian and the Maori to see
+similarities where most other peoples of rude culture
+see differences.</p>
+
+<p>The first point to be noted is that in Oceania
+the distinction between the Hawaiian and the
+more usual forms of the classificatory system does
+not correspond with the distinction between the
+Polynesian and Melanesian peoples. Systems are<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_67" id="Page_67">[67]</a></span>
+to be found in Melanesia, as in the western Solomons,
+which closely resemble that of Hawaii,
+while there are Polynesian systems, such as those
+of Tonga and Tikopia, which are so like those
+of Melanesia that, if they had occurred there, they
+would have attracted no special attention. The
+difference between the two kinds of system is not
+to be correlated with any difference of race.</p>
+
+<p>Next, if we take Melanesian and Polynesian
+systems as a whole, we find that they do not fall
+into two sharply marked-off groups, but that there
+are any number of intermediate gradations between
+the two. It would be possible to arrange the
+classificatory systems of Oceania in a series in which
+it would not be possible to draw the line at any
+point between the different varieties of system
+which the two ends of the series seem to represent.
+The question arises whether it is possible to find
+any other series of transitions in Oceania which
+runs parallel with the series connecting the two
+varieties of system of relationship. There is no
+doubt but that this question can be answered in
+the affirmative.</p>
+
+<p>Speaking broadly, there are two main varieties
+of social organisation in Oceania, with an infinite
+number of intermediate conditions. In one variety
+marriage is regulated by some kind of clan-exogamy,
+including under the term “clan” the
+moieties of a dual organisation; in the other variety
+marriage is regulated by kinship or genealogical
+relationship. We know of no part of Melanesia<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_68" id="Page_68">[68]</a></span>
+where marriage is regulated solely by clan-exogamy,
+but it is possible to arrange Melanesian and Polynesian
+societies in a series according to the different
+degrees in which the principles of genealogical
+relationship is the determining factor in the regulation
+of marriage. At one end of the series we
+should have places like the Banks Islands, the
+northern New Hebrides and the Santa Cruz
+Islands, where the clan-organisation is so obviously
+important that it was the only mechanism for the
+regulation of marriage which was recognised even
+by so skilful an observer as Dr. Codrington. At
+the other end of the series we have places such as
+the Hawaiian Islands and Eddystone Island in the
+western Solomons, where only the barest traces of
+a clan-organisation are to be found and where
+marriage is regulated solely by genealogical
+relationship. Between the two are numerous intermediate
+cases, and the series so formed runs so
+closely parallel to that representing the transitions
+between different forms of the classificatory system
+that it seems out of the question but that there
+should be a relation between the two. Of all the
+places where I have myself worked, the two in
+which I failed to find any trace of the regulation
+of marriage by means of a clan-organisation were
+the Hawaiian Islands and Eddystone Island, and
+the systems of both places were lacking in just
+those distinctions the absence of which characterised
+the Malayan system of Morgan. Only in
+one point did the Eddystone system differ from<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_69" id="Page_69">[69]</a></span>
+the Hawaiian. Though the mother’s brother was
+classed in nomenclature with the father, there was
+a term for the sister’s son, but it was so little used
+that in a superficial survey it would have escaped
+notice. Its use was so exceptional that many of
+the islanders were doubtful about its proper
+meaning. In other parts of the Solomons where
+the clan-organisation persists, but where the
+regulation of marriage by genealogical relationship
+is equally, if not more, important, the systems of
+relationship show intermediate characters. Thus,
+in the island of Florida the mother’s brother was
+distinguished from the father and there was a term
+by means of which to distinguish cross-cousins from
+other kinds of cousin, but the father’s sister was
+classed with the mother, and it was habitual to
+ignore the proper term for cross-cousins and to class
+them in nomenclature with brothers and sisters and
+with cousins of other kinds, as in the Hawaiian
+system. One influential man even applied the
+term for father to the mother’s brother; it was
+evident that a change is even now in progress which
+would have to go very little farther to make the
+Florida system indistinguishable in structure from
+that of Hawaii.</p>
+
+<p>Among the western Papuo-Melanesians of New
+Guinea, again, the systems of relationship come
+very near to the Hawaiian type, and with this character
+there is associated a very high degree of
+importance of the regulation of marriage by
+genealogical relationship and a vagueness of clan-<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_70" id="Page_70">[70]</a></span>organisation.
+We have here so close a parallelism
+between two series of social phenomena as to
+supply as good an example as could be wished of
+the application of the method of concomitant
+variations in the domain of sociology.</p>
+
+<p>The nature of these changes and their relation
+to the general cultures of the peoples who use
+the different forms of terminology show that the
+transitions are to be associated with a progressive
+change which has taken place in Oceania. In this
+part of the world the classificatory system has been
+the seat of a process of simplification starting from
+the almost incredible complexity of Pentecost and
+reaching the simplicity of such systems as those of
+Eddystone or Mekeo. This process has gone hand
+in hand with one in which the regulation of
+marriage by some kind of clan-exogamy has
+gradually been replaced by a mechanism based on
+relationship as traced by means of pedigrees.</p>
+
+<p>If this conclusion be accepted, it will follow that
+the more widely distributed varieties of the classificatory
+system of relationship are associated with
+a social structure which has the exogamous social
+group as its essential unit. This position has only
+to be stated for it to become apparent how all
+the main features of the classificatory system are
+such as would follow directly from such a social
+structure. Wherever the classificatory system is
+found in association with a system of exogamous
+social groups, the terms of relationship do not
+apply merely to relatives with whom it is possible<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_71" id="Page_71">[71]</a></span>
+to trace genealogical relationship, but to all the
+members of a clan of a given generation, even if no
+such relationship with them can be traced. Thus,
+a man will not only apply the term “father” to
+all the brothers of his father, to all the sons’ sons
+of his father’s father, and to all the sons’ sons’
+sons of his father’s father’s father, to all the
+husbands of his mother’s sisters and of his
+mother’s mother’s granddaughters, etc., but he
+will also apply the term to all the members of his
+father’s clan of the same generation as his father
+and to all the husbands of the women of the
+mother’s clan of the same generation as the mother,
+even when it is quite impossible to show any
+genealogical relationship with them. All these and
+the other main features of the classificatory system
+become at once natural and intelligible if this
+system had its origin in a social structure in which
+exogamous social groups, such as the clan or
+moiety, were even more completely and essentially
+the social units than we know them to be to-day
+among the peoples whose social systems have been
+carefully studied. If you are dissatisfied with the
+word “classificatory” as a term for the system of
+relationship which is found in America, Africa,
+India, Australia and Oceania, you would be perfectly
+safe in calling it the “clan” system, and in
+inferring the ancient presence of a social structure
+based on the exogamous clan even if this structure
+were no longer present.</p>
+
+<p>Not only is the general character of the classi<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_72" id="Page_72">[72]</a></span>ficatory
+system exactly such as would be the consequence
+of its origin in a social structure founded
+on the exogamous social group, but many details
+of these systems point in the same direction. Thus,
+the rigorous distinctions between father’s brother
+and mother’s brother, and between father’s sister
+and mother’s sister, which are characteristic of the
+usual forms of the classificatory system, are the
+obvious consequence of the principle of exogamy.
+If this principle be in action, these relatives must
+always belong to different social groups, so that it
+would be natural to distinguish them in nomenclature.</p>
+
+<p>Further, there are certain features of the classificatory
+system which suggest its origin in a special
+form of exogamous social grouping, viz., that
+usually known as the dual system in which there are
+only two social groups or moieties. It is an almost
+universal feature of the classificatory system that
+the children of brothers are classed with the
+children of sisters. A man applies the same term
+to his mother’s sister’s children which he uses for
+his father’s brother’s children, and the use of this
+term, being the same as that used for a brother or
+sister, carries with it the most rigorous prohibition
+of marriage. Such a condition would not follow
+necessarily from a social state in which there were
+more than two social groups. If the society were
+patrilineal, the children of two brothers would
+necessarily belong to the same social group, so that
+the principle of exogamy would prevent marriage<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_73" id="Page_73">[73]</a></span>
+between them, but if the women of the group had
+married into different clans, there is no reason
+arising out of the principle of exogamy which
+should prevent marriage between their children or
+lead to the use of a term common to them and the
+children of brothers. Similarly, if the society were
+matrilineal, the children of two sisters would necessarily
+belong to the same social group, but this
+would not be the case with the children of brothers
+who might marry into different social groups.</p>
+
+<p>If, however, there be only two social groups, the
+case is very different. It would make no difference
+whether descent were patrilineal or matrilineal. In
+each case the children of two brothers or of two
+sisters must belong to the same moiety, while the
+children of brother and sister must belong to
+different moieties. The children of two brothers
+would be just as ineligible as consorts as the
+children of two sisters. Similarly, it would be a
+natural consequence of the dual organisation that
+the mother’s brother’s children should be classed
+with the father’s sister’s children, but this would
+not be necessary if there were more than two social
+groups.</p>
+
+<p>I should have liked, if there were time, to deal
+with other features of the classificatory system, but
+must be content with these examples. I hope to
+have succeeded in showing that the social causation
+of the terminology of relationship goes far beyond
+the mere dependence of features of the system on
+special forms of marriage, and that the character of<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_74" id="Page_74">[74]</a></span>
+the classificatory system as a whole has been determined
+by its origin in a specific form of social
+organisation. I propose now to leave the classificatory
+system for a moment and inquire whether
+another system of denoting and classifying relationships
+may not similarly be shown to be determined
+by social conditions. The system I shall consider
+is our own. Let us examine this system in its
+relation to the form of social organisation prevalent
+among ourselves.</p>
+
+<p>Just as among most peoples of rude culture the
+clan or other exogamous group is the essential unit
+of social organisation, so among ourselves this social
+unit is the family, using this term for the group
+consisting of a man, his wife, and their children.
+If we examine our terms of relationship, we find
+that those applied to individual persons and those
+used in a narrow and well-defined sense are just
+those in which the family is intimately concerned.
+The terms father, mother, husband and wife,
+brother and sister, are limited to members of the
+family of the speaker, and the terms father-, mother-, brother-, and
+sister-in-law to the members
+of the family of the wife or husband in the same
+narrowly restricted sense. Similarly, the terms
+grandfather and grandmother are limited to the
+parents of the father and mother, while the terms
+grandson and granddaughter are only used of the
+families of the children in the narrow sense. The
+terms uncle and aunt, nephew and niece, are
+used in a less restricted sense, but even these<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_75" id="Page_75">[75]</a></span>
+terms are only used of persons who stand in a
+close relation to the family of the speaker. We
+have only one term used with anything approaching
+the wide connotation of classificatory terms
+of relationship, and this term is used for a
+group of relatives who have as their chief feature
+in common that they are altogether outside the
+proper circle of the family and have no social
+obligations or privileges. They are as eligible for
+marriage as any other members of the community,
+and only in the very special cases I considered in
+the first lecture are they brought into any kind of
+legal relation. The dependence of our own use of
+terms of relationship on the social institution of the
+family seems to me so obvious that I find it difficult
+to understand how anyone who has considered
+these terms can put forward the view that the
+terminology of relationship is not socially conditioned.
+It seems to me that we have only to have
+the proposition stated that the classificatory system
+and our own are the outcome of the social institutions
+of the clan and family respectively for the
+social causation of such terminology to become conspicuous.
+I find it difficult to understand why it
+has not long before this been universally recognised.
+I do not think we can have a better example
+of the confusion and prejudice which have been
+allowed to envelop the subject through the unfortunate
+introduction of the problem of the
+primitive promiscuity or monogamy of mankind.
+It is not necessary to have an expert knowledge of<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_76" id="Page_76">[76]</a></span>
+the classificatory system. It is only necessary to
+consider the terms we have used almost from our
+cradles in relation to their social setting to see how
+the terminology of relationship has been determined
+by that setting.</p>
+
+<p>This brief study of our own terms of relationship
+leads me to speak about the name by which our
+system is generally known. Morgan called it the
+“descriptive system,” and this term has been
+generally adopted. I believe, however, that it is
+wholly inappropriate. Those terms which apply
+to one person and to one person only may be called
+descriptive if you please, though even here the use
+does not seem very happy. When we pass beyond
+these, however, our terms are no whit more descriptive
+than those of the classificatory system.
+We speak of a grandfather, not of a father’s father
+or a mother’s father, only distinguishing grandfathers
+in this manner when it is necessary to
+supplement our customary terminology by more
+exact description. Similarly, we speak of a brother-in-law,
+and only in exceptional circumstances do
+we use forms of language which indicate whether
+reference is being made to the brother of the
+husband or wife or to the husband of a sister.
+Such occasional usages do not make our system
+descriptive, and if they be held to do so, the classificatory
+system is just as descriptive as our own.
+All those peoples who use the classificatory system
+are capable of such exact description of relationship
+as I have mentioned. Indeed, classificatory systems<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_77" id="Page_77">[77]</a></span>
+are often more descriptive than our own. In some
+forms of this system true descriptive terms are
+found in habitual use. Thus, in the coastal systems
+of Fiji the mother’s brother is often called <i>ngandina</i>
+(<i>ngane</i>, sister of a man, and <i>tina</i>, mother), this
+term being used in place of the <i>vungo</i> already
+mentioned. Similar uses of descriptive terms occur
+in other parts of Melanesia. Thus, in Santa Cruz
+the father’s sister is called <i>inwerderde</i> (<i>inwe</i>, sister,
+and <i>derde</i>, father). This relative is one for whom
+Melanesian systems of relationship not infrequently
+possess no special designation, and the use of a
+descriptive term suggests a recent process which
+has come into action in order to denote a relative
+who had previously lacked any special designation.</p>
+
+<p>If “descriptive” is thus an inappropriate name
+for our own system, it will be necessary to find
+another, and I should like boldly to recognise the
+direct dependence of its characters on the institution
+of the family and to speak of it as the “family system.”</p>
+
+<p>While I thus reject the term “descriptive” as
+a proper name for the terminology of relationship
+with which we are especially familiar, it does not
+follow that there may not be systems of denoting
+relationship which properly deserve this title. In
+Samoa a mode of denoting relatives is often used
+in which the great majority of the terms are
+descriptive. Thus, the only term which I could
+obtain for the father’s brother’s son was <i>atalii o le
+uso o le tama</i>, which is literally “son of the brother<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_78" id="Page_78">[78]</a></span>
+of the father,” and there is some reason to suppose
+that this descriptive usage has come into vogue
+owing to the total inadequacy of the ancient
+Samoan system to express relationships in which
+the peoples are now interested.</p>
+
+<p>The wide use of such descriptive terms is also
+found in many systems of Europe, as in the Celtic
+languages, in those of Scandinavia, in Lithuanian
+and Esthonian.<a name="FNanchor_32_32" id="FNanchor_32_32"></a><a href="#Footnote_32_32" class="fnanchor">[32]</a> A similar mode of denoting
+relationships is found in Semitic languages and
+among the Shilluks and Dinkas of the Anglo-Egyptian
+Sudan, and since it is from these peoples
+that I have gained my own experience of descriptive
+terminology, I propose to take them as my
+examples.</p>
+
+<p>In the Arabic system of relationship used in
+Egypt many of the terms are descriptive; thus, the
+father’s brother being called <i>’amm</i>, the father’s
+brother’s wife is <i>mirat ’ammi</i>, the father’s brother’s
+son <i>ibn ’ammi</i>, and the father’s brother’s daughter
+<i>bint ’ammi</i>, and there is a similar usage for the
+consorts and children of the father’s sister and of
+the brother and sister of the mother.</p>
+
+<p>Similarly, many Shilluk terms suggest a descriptive
+character, the father’s brother being <i>wa</i>, the
+wife of the father’s brother is <i>chiwa</i>, the father’s
+brother’s son is <i>uwa</i>, and his daughter is <i>nyuwa</i>.
+The father’s sister being <i>waja</i>, her son and
+daughter are <i>uwaja</i> and <i>nyuwaja</i> respectively.
+Similar descriptive terms are used by the Dinkas.<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_79" id="Page_79">[79]</a></span>
+The father’s brother being <i>walen</i>, the father’s
+brother’s son is <i>manwalen</i> and his daughter <i>yanwalen</i>;
+the mother’s brother being <i>ninar</i>, the
+mother’s brother’s son is <i>manninar</i> and his
+daughter <i>yanninar</i>.</p>
+
+<p>According to the main thesis of these lectures,
+these descriptive usages should own some definite
+social cause. The descriptive terminology seems to
+be particularly definite in the case of cousins, and
+it might be suggested that they are dependent, at
+any rate in part and in so far as Egypt is concerned,
+on the prevalence of marriage with a cousin.
+Marriages with the daughter of a father’s brother
+or of a mother’s brother are especially orthodox
+and popular in Egypt, and different degrees of
+preference for marriage with different classes of
+cousin would produce just such a social need as
+would have led to the definite distinction of the
+different kinds of cousin from one another by
+means of descriptive terms.</p>
+
+<p>It is more probable, however, that the use of
+descriptive terms in the languages of the Semites
+and of the Shilluks and Dinkas has been the outcome
+of a definite form of social organisation, viz.,
+that in which the social unit is neither the family
+in the narrow sense, nor the clan, but that body
+of persons of common descent living in one house
+or in some other kind of close association which we
+call the patriarchal or extended family, the <i>Grossfamilie</i>
+of the Germans. It is a feature of the
+Semitic and Nilotic systems, not only to distinguish<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_80" id="Page_80">[80]</a></span>
+the four chief categories of cousin, but also the four
+chief kinds of uncle or aunt, viz., the father’s
+brother, the father’s sister, the mother’s brother
+and the mother’s sister, all of whom are habitually
+classed together in our system, while some of them
+are classed with the father or mother in the classificatory
+system. The Semitic and Nilotic terminology
+is such as would follow from a form of social
+organisation in which the more intimate relationships
+of the family in the narrow sense are definitely
+recognised, but yet certain uncles, aunts, and
+cousins are of so much importance as to make it
+necessary for social purposes that they shall be
+denoted exactly. The brothers of the father and
+the unmarried sisters of the father would be of the
+same social group as the father, while the brothers
+and unmarried sisters of the mother would be of a
+different social group, which would account for
+their distinctive nomenclature, while within the
+social group it would be necessary to distinguish
+the father from his brothers. It would be too
+cumbrous to call this variety of system after the
+extended family, and I suggest that it should be
+called the “kindred” system.</p>
+
+<p>Analogy with other parts of the world suggests
+that all those of the same generation in the social
+group formed by the extended family may once
+have been classed together under one term, and
+that, as later there arose social motives requiring
+the distinction of different relatives so classed
+together, descriptive terms came into use to make<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_81" id="Page_81">[81]</a></span>
+the necessary distinctions. You must please regard
+this only as a suggestion. We need far more
+detailed evidence concerning the social status of
+different relatives among the peoples who use these
+descriptive terms. Such knowledge as we possess
+seems to point to the dependence of the Semitic
+and Sudanese terminology upon the social institution
+of the extended family, just as our own system
+depends on the social institution of the family in
+the narrow sense and the classificatory system upon
+the clan.</p>
+
+<p>If this descriptive mode of nomenclature be thus
+the outcome of a social organisation of which the
+essential element is the extended family, I need
+hardly point out how natural it is that we should
+find this kind of nomenclature so widely in Europe.
+The presence of this descriptive terminology in
+Celtic and Scandinavian languages, in Lithuanian
+and Esthonian, would be examples of the persistence
+of a form of nomenclature which had its origin
+in the kindred of the extended family. On this
+view we must believe that, in other languages of
+Europe, this mode of nomenclature has gradually
+been replaced by one dependent on the social
+institution of the family in the narrow sense.</p>
+
+<p>At this point I should like to sum up briefly the
+position to which our argument has taken us. I
+have first shown the dependence of a number of
+special features of the classificatory system of
+relationship upon special forms of marriage. Then
+I have shown that certain broad varieties of the<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_82" id="Page_82">[82]</a></span>
+classificatory system are to be referred to different
+forms of social organisation and to the different
+degrees in which the regulation of marriage by
+means of clan-exogamy has been replaced by a
+mechanism dependent upon kinship or genealogical
+relationship. From that I was led to refer the
+general features of the classificatory system to the
+dependence of this system upon the social unit of
+the clan as opposed to the family which I believe
+to be the basis of our own terminology of relationship.
+I then pointed to several features of the
+classificatory system which suggest that it arose in
+that special variety of the clan-organisation in
+which a community consists of two exogamous
+moieties, forming the social structure usually
+known as the dual organisation. I considered more
+fully the dependence of our own mode of denoting
+relatives upon the social institution of the family,
+and then a study of the descriptive terminology of
+relationship has led me to suggest that certain
+modes of denoting relationship in Egypt, the Sudan
+and many European countries may be examples of
+a third main variety of system of relationship which
+has arisen out of the patriarchal or extended family.
+We should thus have three main varieties of system
+of relationship in place of the two which have hitherto
+been recognised, having their origins respectively
+in the clan, in the family in the narrow sense, and
+in the extended or patriarchal family. These three
+varieties may be regarded as genera within each of
+which are species and varieties depending upon<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_83" id="Page_83">[83]</a></span>
+special social conditions which have arisen within
+each kind of social grouping, either as the result of
+changes within each form of social organisation or
+of transitions from one form to another. We know
+of a far larger number of such varieties within the
+classificatory system than within those due to the
+two forms of the family, and this is probably due
+in some measure to the fact that the classificatory
+system is still by far the most widely distributed
+form over the earth’s surface. Still more important,
+however, is the fact that among the peoples
+who use the classificatory system there is an
+infinitely greater variety of social institution,
+and especially of forms of marriage, than exist
+among civilised peoples whose main social unit, the
+family, is not one which is capable of any extended
+range of variation. The result of the complete
+survey has been to justify my use of the classificatory
+system as the means whereby to demonstrate
+the dependence of the terminology of relationship
+upon social conditions. It is the great variability
+of this mode of denoting relatives which makes it
+so valuable an instrument for the study of the laws
+which have governed the history of that department
+of language by which mankind has denoted
+those who stand in social relations to himself.</p>
+
+
+<p class="tb">You may have been wondering whether I am
+going to say anything about the merits of the controversy
+which has till now given to systems of
+relationship their chief interest among students of<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_84" id="Page_84">[84]</a></span>
+sociology. I have so far left on one side the subjects
+which have been the main ground of controversy
+ever since the time of Morgan. You will have
+gathered that I regard it as a grave misfortune for
+the science of sociology that the topics of promiscuity
+and group-marriage should have been thrust
+by Morgan into the prominent place which they
+have ever since occupied in the theoretical study
+of relationship. Even now I should have liked to
+leave them on one side on the ground that the
+evidence is as yet insufficient to make them profitable
+subjects for such exact inquiry as I believe to
+be the proper business of sociology. Their very
+prominence, however, makes it impossible to leave
+them wholly unconsidered, but I propose to deal
+with them very briefly.</p>
+
+<p>I begin with the question whether the classificatory
+system of relationship provides us with any
+evidence that mankind once possessed a form of
+social organisation, or rather such an absence of
+social organisation, as would accompany a condition
+of general promiscuity in which, if one can speak
+of marriage at all, marriage was practised between
+all and any members of the community, including
+brothers and sisters. I can deal with this subject
+very briefly because I hope to have succeeded elsewhere
+in knocking away the support on which the
+whole of Morgan’s own construction rested.</p>
+
+<p>Morgan deduced his stage of promiscuity from
+the Hawaiian system, which he supposed to be the
+most primitive form of classificatory nomenclature.<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_85" id="Page_85">[85]</a></span>
+In an article published in 1907 I showed<a name="FNanchor_33_33" id="FNanchor_33_33"></a><a href="#Footnote_33_33" class="fnanchor">[33]</a> that it
+rather represents a late stage in the history of the
+more ordinary forms of the classificatory system.
+My conclusion at that time was based on the scanty
+evidence derived from the relatively few Oceanic
+systems which had then been recorded, but my
+work since that article was written has shown the
+absolute correctness of my earlier opinion, which I
+can now support by a far larger body of evidence
+than was available in 1907. It remains possible,
+however, that the Hawaiian system may have had
+its source in promiscuity, even though this condition
+be late rather than primitive, but it would
+be going beyond the scope of these lectures to deal
+fully with this subject here. I cannot forbear,
+however, from mentioning that Hawaiian promiscuity,
+in so far as it existed, was not the condition
+of the whole people, but only of the chiefs who
+alone were allowed to contract brother and sister
+marriages, while I have evidence that the avoidance
+of brother and sister in Melanesia, which has so
+often been regarded as a survival of man’s early
+promiscuity, is capable of a very different explanation.<a name="FNanchor_34_34" id="FNanchor_34_34"></a><a href="#Footnote_34_34" class="fnanchor">[34]</a>
+Our available knowledge, whether derived
+from features of the classificatory system or from
+other social facts, does not provide one shred of
+evidence in favour of such a condition as was put
+forward by Morgan as the earliest stage of human
+society, nor is there any evidence that such promis<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_86" id="Page_86">[86]</a></span>cuity
+has ever been the ruling principle of a people
+at any later stage of the history of mankind.</p>
+
+<p>The subject of group-marriage is one about
+which I do not find it possible to speak so dogmatically.
+It would take me more than another
+lecture to deal adequately with the Melanesian
+evidence alone, and I must content myself with two
+remarks. Firstly, I think it desirable to throw
+aside the term group-marriage as only confusing
+the issue, and to speak rather of a state of organised
+sexual communism, in which sexual relations are
+recognised as orthodox between the men of one
+social group and the women of another. Secondly,
+the classificatory system has several features which
+would follow naturally from such a condition
+of sexual communism. I have evidence from
+Melanesia which places beyond question the former
+presence of such a condition, with features of
+culture which become readily explicable if they
+be the survivals of such a state of sexual communism
+as is suggested by the terminology of the
+classificatory system. This evidence comes from
+only one part of the world, but it is enough to
+convince me that we have no right to dismiss from
+our minds a state of organised sexual communism
+as a feature of the social development of mankind.
+The wide distribution of the classificatory system
+would suggest that this communism has been very
+general, but it need not have been universal, and
+even if the widespread existence of organised
+sexual communism be established, it would not<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_87" id="Page_87">[87]</a></span>
+follow that it represents the earliest stage in the
+evolution of human society. There are certain
+features even of the classificatory system itself
+which suggest that, if this system be founded in
+sexual communism, this communism was not
+primitive, but grew out of a condition in which
+only such ties of kinship were recognised as would
+result from the social institution of the family.</p>
+
+<p>I must be content with this brief reference to
+the subject. The object of these lectures is to
+demonstrate the dependence of the terminology of
+relationship upon social conditions, and the dependence
+of the classificatory system upon a condition of
+sexual communism is not now capable of demonstration.
+The classificatory mode of denoting
+relationship should, however, act as a suggestion
+and stimulus, and as a preventative of dogmatic
+statement in a part of our subject which, in spite
+of its entrancing interest, still lies only at the edge
+of our slowly spreading circle of exact knowledge.</p>
+
+<p>In conclusion, I should like to point out briefly
+some of the lessons of more general interest which
+may be learnt from the facts I have brought before
+you in these lectures. I hope that one result
+has been to convince you of the danger lying in
+the use of the <i>reductio ad absurdum</i> argument
+when dealing with cultures widely different from
+our own. In the literature of the subject one often
+meets the adjectives “absurd” and “impossible”
+applied in some cases to social conditions in which
+the actual existence of the absurdities or impossi<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_88" id="Page_88">[88]</a></span>bilities
+can be demonstrated. I may take as an
+example the argument of Mr. N. W. Thomas,
+which I have already mentioned, in which the
+classing of the maternal grandfather with the elder
+brother by the Dieri is regarded as reducing to an
+absurdity the contention that classificatory terms
+express ties of kinship. If Mr. Thomas had had
+a more lively faith in the social meaning of terms
+of relationship, he might have been led to notice that
+the Dieri marry the granddaughter of a brother,
+a fact he appears, in common with many other
+readers of Howitt, to have missed; one result
+of this marriage is to bring about just such a
+relationship as Howitt records without a man being
+his own great-uncle, as is supposed to be necessary
+by Mr. Thomas.</p>
+
+<p>Still another example may be taken from Professor
+Kroeber. He states that the classing together
+of the grandfather and the father-in-law which is
+found in the Dakota system, when worked out to
+its implications, would lead to the absurd conclusion
+that marriage with the mother was once
+customary among the Sioux. Here again, if
+Professor Kroeber had been less imbued with his
+belief in a purely linguistic and psychological chain
+of causation, and had been ready to entertain the
+idea that there might be a social meaning, he must
+have been led to see that the features of nomenclature
+in question would follow from other forms
+of marriage, and two of these, whatever their
+apparent improbability in America, cannot well be<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_89" id="Page_89">[89]</a></span>
+called absurd, since they are known to occur in
+other parts of the world. Following Riggs, Professor
+Kroeber does not specify which kinds of
+grandfather and father-in-law are classed together
+in Dakotan nomenclature, but in the full list given
+by Morgan, it is evident that one term is used for
+the fathers of both father and mother and for the
+fathers of both husband and wife. The classing of
+the father’s father with the wife’s father would be
+a natural result of marriage with the father’s sister,
+while the common nomenclature for father’s father
+and husband’s father would result from marriage
+with the brother’s daughter. It is not without
+significance that the features of nomenclature
+which would be the result of one or other, or of
+both these marriages, occur in a system which also
+bears evidence of the cross-cousin marriage, for
+these three forms of marriage occur in conjunction
+in one part of Melanesia, viz., the Torres Islands.</p>
+
+<p>The foregoing instance, together with many
+others scattered through these lectures, will have
+pointed clearly to another lesson. In the present
+state of our knowledge a working scheme or
+hypothesis has largely to be judged by its utility.
+A way of regarding social phenomena which
+obstructs inquiry and leads people to overlook
+facts has its disadvantages, to say the least,
+while a scheme or hypothesis which leads people
+to worry out and discover things which do not lie
+on the surface will establish a strong claim on our
+consideration, even if it should ultimately turn out<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_90" id="Page_90">[90]</a></span>
+to be only the partial truth. I will give only one
+instance to illustrate how a belief in the dependence
+of the terminology of relationship on forms
+of marriage might act as a stimulus to research.</p>
+
+<p>In a system from the United Provinces recorded
+by Mr. E. A. H. Blunt in the Report of the last
+Indian Census, one term, <i>bahu</i>, is used for the
+son’s wife, for the wife, and for the mother.<a name="FNanchor_35_35" id="FNanchor_35_35"></a><a href="#Footnote_35_35" class="fnanchor">[35]</a> Mr.
+Blunt puts on one side without hesitation the
+possibility that such common nomenclature can
+have been the result of any form of marriage,
+and ascribes it to the custom whereby a man and
+his wife live with the husband’s parents, in consequence
+of which the son’s wife, who is called
+<i>bahu</i> by her husband, is also called <i>bahu</i> by everyone
+else in the house. The causation of the common
+nomenclature which is thus put forward is a
+possible, perhaps even a probable, explanation. In
+such a case we should have a social chain of
+causation in which the son’s wife is called <i>bahu</i>
+because she is one of a social group bound together
+by the ties of a common habitation. It can do no
+harm, however, to bear in mind as an alternative
+the possibility that the terminology may have arisen
+out of a form of marriage. It is evident that the
+use of a common term for the wife and the son’s
+wife would follow from a form of polyandry in
+which a man and his son have a wife in common.
+A further result of this form of marriage would
+be that the wife of the son, being also the wife of<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_91" id="Page_91">[91]</a></span>
+his father, would have the status of a mother.<a name="FNanchor_36_36" id="FNanchor_36_36"></a><a href="#Footnote_36_36" class="fnanchor">[36]</a>
+We have no evidence for the presence of such a
+marriage in India, but our knowledge of the
+sociology of the more backward peoples of India is
+not so complete that we can afford to neglect any
+clue. The possibility suggested by the mode of
+using the term <i>bahu</i> should lead us to look for other
+evidence of such a form of polyandry among the
+ruder elements of the population of India, of whose
+social structure our present knowledge is so fragmentary.</p>
+
+<p>Another important result of our study of the
+terminology of relationship is that it helps us to
+understand the proper place of psychological
+explanation in sociology. These lectures have
+largely been devoted to the demonstration of
+the failure to explain features of the terminology
+of relationship on psychological grounds.
+If this demonstration has been successful, it
+is not because the terminology of relationship
+is anything peculiar, differing from other bodies of
+sociological facts; it is because in relationship we
+have to do with definite and clean-cut facts. The
+terminology of relationship is only a specially
+favourable example by means of which to show the
+value of an attitude towards, and mode of treatment
+of, social facts which hold good, though less
+conspicuously, throughout the whole field of
+sociology.</p>
+
+<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_92" id="Page_92">[92]</a></span></p>
+
+<p>In social, as in all other kinds of human activity,
+psychological factors must have an essential part.
+I have myself in these lectures pointed to psychological
+considerations as elements in the problems
+with which the sociologist has to deal. These
+psychological elements are, however, only concomitants
+of social processes with which it is possible
+to deal apart from their psychological aspect.
+It has been the task of these lectures to refer the
+social facts of relationship to antecedent social conditions,
+and I believe that this is the proper method
+of sociology. Even at the present time, however,
+it is possible to support sociological arguments by
+means of considerations provided by psychological
+motives, and the assistance thus rendered to sociology
+will become far greater as the science of social
+psychology advances.</p>
+
+<p>This is, however, a process very different from the
+interpolation of psychological facts as links in the
+chain of causation connecting social antecedents
+with social consequences. It is in no spirit of
+hostility to social psychology, but in the hope that
+it may help us to understand its proper place in
+the study of social institutions that I venture to
+put forward the method followed in these lectures
+as one proper to the science of sociology.<a name="FNanchor_37_37" id="FNanchor_37_37"></a><a href="#Footnote_37_37" class="fnanchor">[37]</a></p>
+
+<p>It may be that there will be those who will accept
+my main position, but will urge that these lectures
+have been devoted to the criticism of an extreme<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_93" id="Page_93">[93]</a></span>
+position, the position taken up by Professor
+Kroeber. They may say that they have never
+believed in the purely psychological causation of
+the terminology of relationship. In reply to such
+an attitude I can only express my conviction that
+the paper of Professor Kroeber is only the explicit
+and clear statement of an attitude which is implicit
+in the work of nearly all, if not all, the opponents
+of Morgan since McLennan. Whether they have
+themselves recognised it or not, I believe that it
+has been this underlying attitude towards sociological
+problems which has prevented them from
+seeing what is good in Morgan’s work, from sifting
+out the chaff from the wheat of his argument, and
+from recognising how great is the importance to
+the science of sociology of the body of facts which
+Morgan was the first to collect and study. I feel
+that we owe a debt of gratitude to Professor
+Kroeber for having brought the matter into the
+open and for having presented, as a clear issue, a
+fundamental problem of the methods of sociology.</p>
+
+<p>Lastly, I should like to point out how rigorous
+and exact has been the process of the determination
+of the nomenclature of relationship by social conditions
+which has been demonstrated in these
+lectures. We have here a case in which the principle
+of determinism applies with a rigour and
+definiteness equal to that of any of the exact
+sciences. According to my scheme, not only has
+the general character of systems of relationship
+been strictly determined by social conditions, but<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_94" id="Page_94">[94]</a></span>
+every detail of these systems has also been so determined.
+Even so small and apparently insignificant
+a feature as the classing of the sister-in-law with
+the sister has been found to lead back to a definite
+social condition arising out of the regulation of
+marriage and of sexual relations. If sociology is
+to become a science fit to rank with other sciences,
+it must, like them, be rigorously deterministic.
+Social phenomena do not come into being of
+themselves. The proposition that we class two
+relatives together in nomenclature because the
+relationships are similar is, if it stand alone,
+nothing more than a form of words. It is incumbent
+on those who believe in the importance of the
+psychological similarity of social phenomena to
+show in what the supposed similarity consists and
+how it has come about&mdash;in other words, how it has
+been determined. It has been my chief object in
+these lectures to show that, in so far as such
+similarities exist in the case of relationship, they
+have been determined by social conditions. Only
+by attention to this aim throughout the whole field
+of social phenomena can we hope to rid sociology
+of the reproach, so often heard, that it is not a
+science; only thus can we refute those who go still
+further and claim that it can never be a science.</p>
+
+
+
+<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_95" id="Page_95">[95]</a></span></p>
+
+
+
+
+<h2>INDEX</h2>
+
+
+<p>
+“Absurd” in sociology, <a href="#Page_32">32</a>, <a href="#Page_87">87</a>.<br />
+<br />
+America, North, <a href="#Page_10">10</a>, <a href="#Page_18">18</a>, <a href="#Page_49">49</a>, <a href="#Page_55">55</a>.<br />
+<br />
+Anaiteum, <a href="#Page_22">22</a>.<br />
+<br />
+Aniwa, <a href="#Page_22">22</a>.<br />
+<br />
+Assiniboin, <a href="#Page_51">51</a>.<br />
+<br />
+Australia, <a href="#Page_11">11</a>, <a href="#Page_32">32</a>.<br />
+<br />
+Avoidance, <a href="#Page_85">85</a>.<br />
+<br />
+<br />
+Banks Is., <a href="#Page_12">12</a>, <a href="#Page_16">16</a>, <a href="#Page_28">28</a>, <a href="#Page_42">42</a>, <a href="#Page_53">53</a>, <a href="#Page_61">61</a>, <a href="#Page_68">68</a>.<br />
+<br />
+Bellamy, R. L., <a href="#Page_56">56</a>.<br />
+<br />
+Blunt, E. A. H., <a href="#Page_90">90</a>.<br />
+<br />
+Bougainville I., <a href="#Page_40">40</a>.<br />
+<br />
+Brother-in-law, functions of, <a href="#Page_12">12</a>.<br />
+<br />
+Buin, <a href="#Page_40">40</a>.<br />
+<br />
+<br />
+Canarese, <a href="#Page_47">47</a>.<br />
+<br />
+Celtic terms, <a href="#Page_78">78</a>, <a href="#Page_81">81</a>.<br />
+<br />
+Cherokees, <a href="#Page_53">53</a>.<br />
+<br />
+Chiefs, <a href="#Page_85">85</a>.<br />
+<br />
+Choctas, <a href="#Page_53">53</a>.<br />
+<br />
+Christianity, <a href="#Page_30">30</a>.<br />
+<br />
+Clan, <a href="#Page_67">67</a>, <a href="#Page_71">71</a>, <a href="#Page_74">74</a>.<br />
+<br />
+Classes, matrimonial, <a href="#Page_32">32</a>, <a href="#Page_39">39</a>.<br />
+<br />
+Classificatory relationship, <a href="#Page_2">2</a>, <a href="#Page_4">4</a>, <a href="#Page_19">19</a>, <a href="#Page_83">83</a>.<br />
+<br />
+Codrington, Dr., <a href="#Page_28">28</a>, <a href="#Page_30">30</a>, <a href="#Page_68">68</a>.<br />
+<br />
+Communism in property, <a href="#Page_12">12</a>;<br />
+<span style="margin-left: 1em;">sexual, <a href="#Page_62">62</a>, <a href="#Page_86">86</a>.</span><br />
+<br />
+Concomitant variations, method of, <a href="#Page_70">70</a>.<br />
+<br />
+“Creek” Indians, <a href="#Page_53">53</a>.<br />
+<br />
+Crees, <a href="#Page_50">50</a>, <a href="#Page_55">55</a>.<br />
+<br />
+Cross-cousins, <a href="#Page_20">20</a>, <a href="#Page_28">28</a>;<br />
+<span style="margin-left: 1em;"><i>see</i> <a href="#Marriage">marriage</a>.</span><br />
+<br />
+“Crow” Indians, <a href="#Page_53">53</a>.<br />
+<br />
+<br />
+Dakotas, <a href="#Page_51">51</a>, <a href="#Page_88">88</a>.<br />
+<br />
+Descent, <a href="#Page_34">34</a>, <a href="#Page_39">39</a>, <a href="#Page_73">73</a>.<br />
+<br />
+Descriptive system, <a href="#Page_76">76</a>;<br />
+<span style="margin-left: 1em;">terms, <a href="#Page_77">77</a>, <a href="#Page_81">81</a>.</span><br />
+<br />
+Determinism, <a href="#Page_7">7</a>, <a href="#Page_93">93</a>.<br />
+<br />
+Dieri, <a href="#Page_32">32</a>, <a href="#Page_37">37</a>, <a href="#Page_88">88</a>.<br />
+<br />
+Dinkas, <a href="#Page_78">78</a>.<br />
+<br />
+Dorsey, J. O., <a href="#Page_51">51</a>.<br />
+<br />
+Dual organisation, <a href="#Page_32">32</a>, <a href="#Page_34">34</a>, <a href="#Page_58">58</a>, <a href="#Page_67">67</a>, <a href="#Page_72">72</a>, <a href="#Page_82">82</a>.<br />
+<br />
+<br />
+Eddystone I., <a href="#Page_68">68</a>, <a href="#Page_70">70</a>.<br />
+<br />
+Egidi, Father, <a href="#Page_16">16</a>.<br />
+<br />
+Egypt, <a href="#Page_78">78</a>, <a href="#Page_79">79</a>.<br />
+<br />
+English terms of relationship, <a href="#Page_13">13</a>, <a href="#Page_74">74</a>.<br />
+<br />
+Eromanga, <a href="#Page_22">22</a>.<br />
+<br />
+Esthonia, <a href="#Page_78">78</a>, <a href="#Page_81">81</a>.<br />
+<br />
+Exchange of brothers and sisters, <a href="#Page_43">43</a>.<br />
+<br />
+Exogamy, <a href="#Page_68">68</a>, <a href="#Page_72">72</a>.<br />
+<br />
+<br />
+Family, <a href="#Page_74">74</a>, <a href="#Page_77">77</a>, <a href="#Page_87">87</a>;<br />
+<span style="margin-left: 1em;">extended, <a href="#Page_79">79</a>, <a href="#Page_81">81</a>.</span><br />
+<br />
+Father’s sister, functions of, <a href="#Page_16">16</a>.<br />
+<br />
+Field, Rev. J. T., <a href="#Page_57">57</a>.<br />
+<br />
+Fiji, <a href="#Page_22">22</a>, <a href="#Page_31">31</a>, <a href="#Page_39">39</a>, <a href="#Page_77">77</a>.<br />
+<br />
+Fison, Rev. L., <a href="#Page_26">26</a>.<br />
+<br />
+Florida, <a href="#Page_45">45</a>, <a href="#Page_69">69</a>.<br />
+<br />
+Freire-Marreco, Miss B., <a href="#Page_53">53</a>, <a href="#Page_55">55</a>.<br />
+<br />
+Functions of relatives, <a href="#Page_6">6</a>, <a href="#Page_11">11</a>, <a href="#Page_12">12</a>, <a href="#Page_15">15</a>.<br />
+<br />
+<br />
+Gait, E. A., <a href="#Page_47">47</a>.<br />
+<br />
+Genealogical method, <a href="#Page_23">23</a>, <a href="#Page_31">31</a>.<br />
+<br />
+Genealogical relationship, <a href="#Page_68">68</a>, <a href="#Page_70">70</a>.<br />
+<br />
+Gillen, F. J., <a href="#Page_11">11</a>.<br />
+<br />
+Gonds, <a href="#Page_26">26</a>.<br />
+<br />
+Group-marriage, <a href="#Page_6">6</a>, <a href="#Page_86">86</a>.<br />
+<br />
+Guadalcanar, <a href="#Page_23">23</a>, <a href="#Page_45">45</a>.<br />
+<br />
+<br />
+Haidahs, <a href="#Page_54">54</a>.<br />
+<br />
+Hawaiian Is., <a href="#Page_15">15</a>, <a href="#Page_66">66</a>, <a href="#Page_68">68</a>;<br />
+<span style="margin-left: 1em;">system, <a href="#Page_66">66</a>, <a href="#Page_84">84</a>.</span><br />
+<br />
+Head, sanctity of, <a href="#Page_12">12</a>.<br />
+<br />
+Hopi Indians, <a href="#Page_55">55</a>.<br />
+<br />
+Howitt, A. W., <a href="#Page_11">11</a>, <a href="#Page_88">88</a>.<br />
+<br />
+<br />
+India, <a href="#Page_18">18</a>, <a href="#Page_26">26</a>, <a href="#Page_47">47</a>, <a href="#Page_90">90</a>.<br />
+<br />
+<br />
+Kindred, <a href="#Page_80">80</a>.<br />
+<br />
+Kinship, <a href="#Page_1">1</a>, <a href="#Page_67">67</a>, <a href="#Page_82">82</a>.<br />
+<br />
+Kohler, J., <a href="#Page_8">8</a>, <a href="#Page_19">19</a>.<br />
+<br />
+Kroeber, A. L., <a href="#Page_9">9</a>, <a href="#Page_25">25</a>, <a href="#Page_52">52</a>, <a href="#Page_60">60</a>, <a href="#Page_62">62</a>, <a href="#Page_64">64</a>, <a href="#Page_88">88</a>, <a href="#Page_93">93</a>.<br />
+<br />
+Kuni, <a href="#Page_16">16</a>.<br />
+<br />
+<br />
+<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_96" id="Page_96">[96]</a></span>Lithuania, <a href="#Page_78">78</a>, <a href="#Page_81">81</a>.<br />
+<br />
+<br />
+McLennan, J. F., <a href="#Page_6">6</a>, <a href="#Page_17">17</a>.<br />
+<br />
+Malayalam, <a href="#Page_47">47</a>.<br />
+<br />
+“Malayan” system, <a href="#Page_65">65</a>, <a href="#Page_68">68</a>.<br />
+<br />
+Maori, <a href="#Page_66">66</a>.<br />
+<br />
+<a id="Marriage"></a>Marriage, <a href="#Page_1">1</a>, <a href="#Page_60">60</a>;<br />
+<span style="margin-left: 1em;">between brother and sister, <a href="#Page_85">85</a>;</span><br />
+<span style="margin-left: 1em;">by exchange, <a href="#Page_43">43</a>;</span><br />
+<span style="margin-left: 1em;">group-, <a href="#Page_6">6</a>, <a href="#Page_86">86</a>;</span><br />
+<span style="margin-left: 1em;">regulation of, <a href="#Page_67">67</a>;</span><br />
+<span style="margin-left: 1em;">with brother’s daughter, <a href="#Page_89">89</a>;</span><br />
+<span style="margin-left: 1em;">with brother’s granddaughter, <a href="#Page_34">34</a>, <a href="#Page_37">37</a>, <a href="#Page_56">56</a>;</span><br />
+<span style="margin-left: 1em;">with cousin, <a href="#Page_79">79</a>;</span><br />
+<span style="margin-left: 1em;">with cross-cousin, <a href="#Page_20">20</a>, <a href="#Page_39">39</a>, <a href="#Page_43">43</a>, <a href="#Page_47">47</a>, <a href="#Page_49">49</a>, <a href="#Page_54">54</a>;</span><br />
+<span style="margin-left: 1em;">with deceased wife’s sister, <a href="#Page_65">65</a>;</span><br />
+<span style="margin-left: 1em;">with father’s sister, <a href="#Page_89">89</a>;</span><br />
+<span style="margin-left: 1em;">with wife of father’s father, <a href="#Page_40">40</a>, <a href="#Page_57">57</a>;</span><br />
+<span style="margin-left: 1em;">with wife of mother’s brother, <a href="#Page_30">30</a>, <a href="#Page_33">33</a>, <a href="#Page_52">52</a>.</span><br />
+<br />
+Massim, <a href="#Page_56">56</a>.<br />
+<br />
+Mbau, <a href="#Page_22">22</a>.<br />
+<br />
+Mekeo, <a href="#Page_16">16</a>, <a href="#Page_70">70</a>.<br />
+<br />
+Melanesia, <a href="#Page_14">14</a>, <a href="#Page_19">19</a>, <a href="#Page_28">28</a>, <a href="#Page_45">45</a>, <a href="#Page_52">52</a>, <a href="#Page_61">61</a>, <a href="#Page_66">66</a>, <a href="#Page_77">77</a>, <a href="#Page_85">85</a>, <a href="#Page_89">89</a>.<br />
+<br />
+Morgan, Lewis, <a href="#Page_4">4</a>, <a href="#Page_10">10</a>, <a href="#Page_18">18</a>, <a href="#Page_26">26</a>, <a href="#Page_47">47</a>, <a href="#Page_50">50</a>, <a href="#Page_65">65</a>, <a href="#Page_84">84</a>, <a href="#Page_93">93</a>.<br />
+<br />
+Mother’s brother, functions of, <a href="#Page_15">15</a>.<br />
+<br />
+<br />
+New Hebrides, <a href="#Page_22">22</a>, <a href="#Page_31">31</a>, <a href="#Page_68">68</a>.<br />
+<br />
+New Guinea, <a href="#Page_16">16</a>, <a href="#Page_56">56</a>, <a href="#Page_69">69</a>.<br />
+<br />
+Niue, <a href="#Page_15">15</a>.<br />
+<br />
+<br />
+Pantutun, John, <a href="#Page_33">33</a>, <a href="#Page_37">37</a>.<br />
+<br />
+Pawnees, <a href="#Page_53">53</a>, <a href="#Page_54">54</a>.<br />
+<br />
+Pedigrees, <a href="#Page_31">31</a>, <a href="#Page_70">70</a>.<br />
+<br />
+Pentecost I., <a href="#Page_31">31</a>.<br />
+<br />
+Polyandry, <a href="#Page_7">7</a>, <a href="#Page_90">90</a>.<br />
+<br />
+Polynesia, <a href="#Page_15">15</a>, <a href="#Page_61">61</a>, <a href="#Page_66">66</a>.<br />
+<br />
+Prediction, <a href="#Page_26">26</a>.<br />
+<br />
+Promiscuity, <a href="#Page_6">6</a>, <a href="#Page_75">75</a>, <a href="#Page_84">84</a>.<br />
+<br />
+Psychology, <a href="#Page_10">10</a>, <a href="#Page_17">17</a>, <a href="#Page_24">24</a>, <a href="#Page_29">29</a>, <a href="#Page_38">38</a>, <a href="#Page_52">52</a>, <a href="#Page_62">62</a>, <a href="#Page_63">63</a>, <a href="#Page_66">66</a>, <a href="#Page_91">91</a>, <a href="#Page_94">94</a>.<br />
+<br />
+Pueblo Indians, <a href="#Page_53">53</a>.<br />
+<br />
+<br />
+“Red Knives” Indians, <a href="#Page_49">49</a>.<br />
+<br />
+Riggs, Rev. S. R., <a href="#Page_51">51</a>, <a href="#Page_89">89</a>.<br />
+<br />
+Roth, W., <a href="#Page_11">11</a>.<br />
+<br />
+<br />
+Salutations, <a href="#Page_7">7</a>, <a href="#Page_10">10</a>.<br />
+<br />
+Samoa, <a href="#Page_77">77</a>.<br />
+<br />
+San Cristoval, <a href="#Page_46">46</a>.<br />
+<br />
+Santa Cruz, <a href="#Page_15">15</a>, <a href="#Page_68">68</a>, <a href="#Page_77">77</a>.<br />
+<br />
+Scandinavia, <a href="#Page_78">78</a>, <a href="#Page_81">81</a>.<br />
+<br />
+Seligmann, C. G., <a href="#Page_56">56</a>.<br />
+<br />
+Semitic terms, <a href="#Page_78">78</a>, <a href="#Page_81">81</a>.<br />
+<br />
+Shilluks, <a href="#Page_78">78</a>.<br />
+<br />
+Sioux, <a href="#Page_53">53</a>, <a href="#Page_54">54</a>, <a href="#Page_88">88</a>.<br />
+<br />
+Sladen Trust, <a href="#Page_14">14</a>.<br />
+<br />
+Sociology, <a href="#Page_10">10</a>, <a href="#Page_26">26</a>, <a href="#Page_70">70</a>, <a href="#Page_84">84</a>, <a href="#Page_92">92</a>, <a href="#Page_94">94</a>.<br />
+<br />
+Solomon Is., <a href="#Page_15">15</a>, <a href="#Page_23">23</a>, <a href="#Page_45">45</a>, <a href="#Page_67">67</a>, <a href="#Page_68">68</a>.<br />
+<br />
+Spencer, B., <a href="#Page_11">11</a>.<br />
+<br />
+Sudan, <a href="#Page_78">78</a>, <a href="#Page_81">81</a>.<br />
+<br />
+Survival, <a href="#Page_39">39</a>, <a href="#Page_43">43</a>, <a href="#Page_46">46</a>, <a href="#Page_48">48</a>, <a href="#Page_59">59</a>, <a href="#Page_86">86</a>, <a href="#Page_92">92</a>.<br />
+<br />
+Swanton, J. R., <a href="#Page_55">55</a>.<br />
+<br />
+<br />
+Tamil, <a href="#Page_47">47</a>.<br />
+<br />
+Tanna, <a href="#Page_22">22</a>.<br />
+<br />
+Telegu, <a href="#Page_47">47</a>.<br />
+<br />
+Tewa Indians, <a href="#Page_53">53</a>.<br />
+<br />
+Thomas, N. W., <a href="#Page_32">32</a>, <a href="#Page_88">88</a>.<br />
+<br />
+Thurnwald, R., <a href="#Page_40">40</a>.<br />
+<br />
+Tikopia, <a href="#Page_15">15</a>, <a href="#Page_67">67</a>.<br />
+<br />
+Todas, <a href="#Page_49">49</a>.<br />
+<br />
+Tonga, <a href="#Page_15">15</a>, <a href="#Page_67">67</a>.<br />
+<br />
+Torres Is., <a href="#Page_89">89</a>.<br />
+<br />
+Torres Straits, <a href="#Page_11">11</a>, <a href="#Page_44">44</a>.<br />
+<br />
+Trobriand Is., <a href="#Page_55">55</a>.<br />
+<br />
+Tubetube, <a href="#Page_57">57</a>.<br />
+<br />
+<br />
+Wagawaga, <a href="#Page_56">56</a>, <a href="#Page_58">58</a>.<br />
+<br />
+Wedau, <a href="#Page_58">58</a>.<br />
+<br />
+Widow, <a href="#Page_12">12</a>, <a href="#Page_30">30</a>, <a href="#Page_41">41</a>.<br />
+<br />
+<br />
+“Yellow Knife” Indians, <a href="#Page_49">49</a>.<br />
+<br />
+Ysabel, <a href="#Page_46">46</a>.
+</p>
+
+
+<p class="p4 small center">GARDEN CITY PRESS LIMITED, PRINTERS, LETCHWORTH.</p>
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+<h2>LIST OF STUDIES IN
+ECONOMICS &amp; POLITICAL SCIENCE.</h2>
+
+<p class="center"><i>A Series of Monographs by Lecturers and Students
+connected with the London School of
+Economics and Political Science.</i></p>
+
+
+<p class="p2 center"><span class="small">EDITED BY THE</span><br />
+
+DIRECTOR OF THE LONDON SCHOOL OF
+ECONOMICS AND POLITICAL SCIENCE.</p>
+
+<div class="container">
+<div class="ad">
+<p><b>1. The History of Local Rates in England.</b> The substance
+of five lectures given at the School in November and
+December, 1895. By <span class="smcap">Edwin Cannan</span>, M.A., LL.D.
+1896; second, enlarged edition, 1912; xv and 215 pp.,
+Crown 8vo, cloth. 3s. 6d. net.</p>
+
+<p class="right">
+<i>P. S. King and Son.</i>
+</p>
+
+<p><b>2. Select Documents Illustrating the History of Trade
+Unionism.</b> I.&mdash;<span class="smcap">The Tailoring Trade.</span> By <span class="smcap">F. W.
+Galton</span>. With a Preface by <span class="smcap">Sidney Webb</span>, LL.B. 1896;
+242 pp., Cr. 8vo, cloth. 5s.</p>
+
+<p class="right">
+<i>P. S. King and Son.</i>
+</p>
+
+<p><b>3. German Social Democracy.</b> Six lectures delivered at
+the School in February and March, 1896. By the Hon.
+<span class="smcap">Bertrand Russell</span>, B.A., late Fellow of Trinity College,
+Cambridge. With an Appendix on Social Democracy and
+the Woman Question in Germany. By <span class="smcap">Alys Russell</span>,
+B.A. 1896; 204 pp., Cr. 8vo, cloth. 3s. 6d.</p>
+
+<p class="right">
+<i>P. S. King and Son.</i>
+</p>
+
+<p><b>4. The Referendum in Switzerland.</b> By <span class="smcap">M. Simon
+Deploige</span>, University of Louvain. With a Letter on the
+Referendum in Belgium by <span class="smcap">M. J. van den Heuvel</span>,
+Professor of International Law in the University of Louvain.
+Translated by <span class="smcap">C. P. Trevelyan</span>, M.A., Trinity
+College, Cambridge, and edited with Notes, Introduction,
+Bibliography, and Appendices, by <span class="smcap">Lilian Tomn</span> (Mrs.
+Knowles), of Girton College, Cambridge, Research Student
+at the School. 1898; x and 344 pp., Cr. 8vo, cloth,
+7s. 6d.</p>
+
+<p class="right">
+<i>P. S. King and Son.</i>
+</p>
+
+<p><b>5. The Economic Policy of Colbert.</b> By <span class="smcap">A. J. Sargent</span>,
+M.A., Senior Hulme Exhibitioner, Brasenose College,
+Oxford; and Whately Prizeman, 1897, Trinity College,
+Dublin. 1899; viii and 138 pp., Cr. 8vo, cloth. 2s. 6d.</p>
+
+<p class="right">
+<i>P. S. King and Son.</i>
+</p>
+
+<p><b>6. Local Variations in Wages.</b> (The Adam Smith Prize,
+Cambridge University, 1898.) By <span class="smcap">F. W. Lawrence</span>, M.A.,
+Fellow of Trinity College, Cambridge. 1899; viii and 90
+pp., with Index and 18 Maps and Diagrams. Quarto,
+11 in. by 8&frac12; in., cloth. 8s. 6d.</p>
+
+<p class="right">
+<i>Longmans, Green and Co.</i>
+</p>
+
+<p><b>7. The Receipt Roll of the Exchequer for Michaelmas
+Term of the Thirty-first Year of Henry II. (1185).</b> A
+unique fragment transcribed and edited by the Class in
+Palæography and Diplomatic, under the supervision of
+the Lecturer, <span class="smcap">Hubert Hall</span>, F.S.A., of H.M. Public
+Record Office. With thirty-one Facsimile Plates in
+Collotype and Parallel readings from the contemporary
+Pipe Roll. 1899; vii and 37 pp.; Folio, 15&frac12; in. by 11&frac12; in.,
+in green cloth; 3 Copies left. Apply to the Director of
+the London School of Economics.</p>
+
+<p><b>8. Elements of Statistics.</b> By <span class="smcap">Arthur L. Bowley</span>, M.A.,
+Sc.D., F.S.S., Cobden and Adam Smith Prizeman, Cambridge;
+Guy Silver Medallist of the Royal Statistical
+Society; Newmarch Lecturer, 1897-98. 500 pp., and 40
+Diagrams, Demy 8vo, cloth. 1901; Third edition, 1907;
+viii and 336 pp. 10s. 6d. net.</p>
+
+<p class="right">
+<i>P. S. King and Son.</i>
+</p>
+
+<p><b>9. The Place of Compensation in Temperance Reform.</b>
+By <span class="smcap">C. P. Sanger</span>, M.A., late Fellow of Trinity College,
+Cambridge; Barrister-at-Law. 1901; viii and 136 pp.,
+Crown 8vo, cloth, 2s. 6d. net.</p>
+
+<p class="right">
+<i>P. S. King and Son.</i>
+</p>
+
+<p><b>10. A History of Factory Legislation.</b> By <span class="smcap">B. L. Hutchins</span>
+and <span class="smcap">A. Harrison</span> (Mrs. Spencer), B.A., D.Sc. (Econ.),
+London. With a Preface by <span class="smcap">Sidney Webb</span>, LL.B. 1903;
+new and revised edition, 1911, xvi and 298 pp., Demy 8vo,
+cloth. 6s. net.</p>
+
+<p class="right">
+<i>P. S. King and Son.</i>
+</p>
+
+
+<p><b>11. The Pipe Roll of the Exchequer of the See of Winchester
+for the Fourth Year of the Episcopate of Peter Des
+Roches (1207).</b> Transcribed and edited from the original
+Roll in the possession of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners
+by the Class in Palæography and Diplomatic, under the
+supervision of the Lecturer, <span class="smcap">Hubert Hall</span>, F.S.A., of
+H.M. Public Record Office. With a frontispiece giving a
+Facsimile of the Roll. 1903; xlviii and 100 pp., Folio,
+13&frac12; in. by 8&frac12; in., green cloth. 15s. net.</p>
+
+<p class="right">
+<i>P. S. King and Son.</i>
+</p>
+
+<p><b>12. Self-Government in Canada and How it was Achieved.
+The Story of Lord Durham’s Report.</b> By <span class="smcap">F. Bradshaw</span>,
+B.A., D.Sc. (Econ.), London; Senior Hulme Exhibitioner,
+Brasenose College, Oxford. 1903; 414 pp., Demy 8vo,
+cloth. 3s. 6d. net.</p>
+
+<p class="right">
+<i>P. S. King and Son.</i>
+</p>
+
+<p><b>13. History of the Commercial and Financial Relations
+Between England and Ireland from the Period of the
+Restoration.</b> By <span class="smcap">Alice Effie Murray</span> (Mrs. Radice),
+D.Sc. (Econ.), former Student at Girton College, Cambridge;
+Research Student of the London School of Economics
+and Political Science. 1903; 486 pp., Demy 8vo,
+cloth. 3s. 6d. net.</p>
+
+<p class="right">
+<i>P. S. King and Son.</i>
+</p>
+
+<p><b>14. The English Peasantry and the Enclosure of Common
+Fields.</b> By <span class="smcap">Gilbert Slater</span>, M.A., St. John’s College,
+Cambridge; D.Sc. (Econ.), London. 1906; 337 pp.,
+Demy 8vo, cloth. 10s. 6d. net.</p>
+
+<p class="right">
+<i>Constable and Co.</i>
+</p>
+
+<p><b>15. A History of the English Agricultural Labourer.</b> By
+<span class="smcap">Dr. W. Hasbach</span>, Professor of Economics in the University
+of Kiel. Translated from the Second Edition (1908),
+by <span class="smcap">Ruth Kenyon</span>. Introduction by <span class="smcap">Sidney Webb</span>,
+LL.B. 1908; xvi and 470 pp., Demy 8vo, cloth. 7s. 6d.
+net.</p>
+
+<p class="right">
+<i>P. S. King and Son.</i>
+</p>
+
+<p><b>16. A Colonial Autocracy: New South Wales under
+Governor Macquarie (1810-1821).</b> By <span class="smcap">Marion Phillips</span>,
+B.A., Melbourne, D.Sc. (Econ.), London. 1909; xxiii and
+336 pp., Demy 8vo, cloth. 10s. 6d. net.</p>
+
+<p class="right">
+<i>P. S. King and Son.</i>
+</p>
+
+<p><b>17. India and the Tariff Problem.</b> By <span class="smcap">H. B. Lees
+Smith</span>, M.A., M.P. 1909; 120 pp., Crown 8vo, cloth.
+3s. 6d. net.</p>
+
+<p class="right">
+<i>Constable and Co.</i>
+</p>
+
+
+<p><b>18. Practical Notes on the Management of Elections.</b>
+Three Lectures delivered at the School in November, 1909,
+by <span class="smcap">Ellis T. Powell</span>, LL.B., B.Sc. (Econ.), Fellow of the
+Royal Historical and Royal Economic Societies, of the
+Inner Temple, Barrister-at-Law. 1909; 52 pp., 8vo,
+paper. 1s. 6d. net.</p>
+
+<p class="right">
+<i>P. S. King and Son.</i>
+</p>
+
+<p><b>19. The Political Development of Japan.</b> By <span class="smcap">G. E.
+Uyehara</span>, B.A., Washington, D.Sc. (Econ.), London.
+xxiv and 296 pp., Demy 8vo, cloth. 1910. 8s. 6d. net.</p>
+
+<p class="right">
+<i>Constable and Co.</i>
+</p>
+
+<p><b>20. National and Local Finance.</b> By <span class="smcap">J. Watson Grice</span>,
+D.Sc. (Econ.), London. Preface by <span class="smcap">Sidney Webb</span>, LL.B.
+1910; 428 pp., Demy 8vo, cloth. 10s. 6d. net.</p>
+
+<p class="right">
+<i>P. S. King and Son.</i>
+</p>
+
+<p><b>21. An Example of Communal Currency.</b> Facts about
+the Guernsey Market-house. By <span class="smcap">J. Theodore Harris</span>,
+B.A., with an Introduction by <span class="smcap">Sidney Webb</span>, LL.B.,
+1911; xiv and 62 pp., Crown 8vo, cloth, 1s. 6d. net;
+paper, 1s. net.</p>
+
+<p class="right">
+<i>P. S. King and Son.</i>
+</p>
+
+<p><b>22. Municipal Origins.</b> History of Private Bill Legislation.
+By <span class="smcap">F. H. Spencer</span>, LL.B., D.Sc. (Econ.); with a
+Preface by Sir <span class="smcap">Edward Clarke</span>, K.C. 1911; xi and
+333 pp., Demy 8vo, cloth. 10s. 6d. net.</p>
+
+<p class="right">
+<i>Constable and Co.</i>
+</p>
+
+<p><b>23. Seasonal Trades.</b> By Various Authors. With an
+Introduction by <span class="smcap">Sidney Webb</span>. Edited by <span class="smcap">Sidney Webb</span>,
+LL.B., and <span class="smcap">Arnold Freeman</span>, M.A. 1912; xi and 410
+pp., Demy 8vo, cloth. 7s. 6d. net.</p>
+
+<p class="right">
+<i>Constable and Co.</i>
+</p>
+
+<p><b>24. Grants in Aid.</b> A Criticism and a Proposal. By
+<span class="smcap">Sidney Webb</span>, LL.B. 1911; vii and 135 pp., Demy 8vo,
+cloth. 5s. net.</p>
+
+<p class="right">
+<i>Longmans, Green and Co.</i>
+</p>
+
+<p><b>25. The Panama Canal: A Study in International Law.</b>
+By <span class="smcap">H. Arias</span>, B.A., LL.D. 1911; xiv and 188 pp., 2 maps,
+bibliography, Demy 8vo, cloth. 10s. 6d. net.</p>
+
+<p class="right">
+<i>P. S. King and Co.</i>
+</p>
+
+<p><b>26. Combination Among Railway Companies.</b> By <span class="smcap">W. A.
+Robertson</span>, B.A. 1912; 105 pp., Demy 8vo, cloth.
+1s. 6d. net; paper, 1s. net.</p>
+
+<p class="right">
+<i>Constable and Co.</i>
+</p>
+
+
+<p><b>27. War and the Private Citizen</b>: Studies in International
+Law. By <span class="smcap">A. Pearce Higgins</span>, M.A., LL.D.; with Introductory
+Note by the Rt. Hon. <span class="smcap">Arthur Cohen</span>, K.C. 1912;
+xvi and 200 pp., Demy 8vo, cloth. 5s. net.</p>
+
+<p class="right">
+<i>P. S. King and Son.</i>
+</p>
+
+<p><b>28. Life in an English Village</b>: An Economic and Historical
+Survey of the Parish of Corsley, in Wiltshire. By <span class="smcap">M. F.
+Davies</span>. 1909; xiii and 319 pp., illustrations, bibliography,
+Demy 8vo, cloth. 10s. 6d. net.</p>
+
+<p class="right">
+<i>T. Fisher Unwin.</i>
+</p>
+
+<p><b>29. English Apprenticeship and Child Labour</b>: A
+History. By <span class="smcap">O. Jocelyn Dunlop</span>, D.Sc. (Econ.), London;
+with a Supplementary Section on the Modern Problem of
+Juvenile Labour, by the Author and <span class="smcap">R. D. Denman</span>, M.P.
+1912; pp. 390, bibliography, Demy 8vo, cloth. 10s. 6d. net.</p>
+
+<p class="right">
+<i>T. Fisher Unwin.</i>
+</p>
+
+<p><b>30. Origin of Property and the Formation of the Village
+Community.</b> By <span class="smcap">J. St. Lewinski</span>, D.Ec.Sc., Brussels.
+1913; xi. and 71 pp., Demy 8vo, cloth. 3s. 6d. net.</p>
+
+<p class="right">
+<i>Constable and Co.</i>
+</p>
+
+<p><b>31. The Modern Tendency toward Industrial Combination
+in some Spheres of British Industry.</b> By <span class="smcap">G. R. Carter</span>,
+M.A. 1913; xi and 386 pp., Demy 8vo, cloth. 6s. net.</p>
+
+<p class="right">
+<i>Constable and Co.</i>
+</p>
+
+<p><b>32. Tariffs at Work</b>: An outline of Practical Tariff
+Administration. By <span class="smcap">John Hedley Higginson</span>, B.Sc.
+(Econ.), Mitchell Student of the University of London;
+Cobden Prizeman and Silver Medallist. 1913; 150 pp.,
+Crown 8vo, cloth. 2s. net.</p>
+
+<p class="right">
+<i>P. S. King and Son.</i>
+</p>
+
+<p><b>33. English Taxation, 1640-1799.</b> An Essay on Policy
+and Opinion. By <span class="smcap">William Kennedy</span>, M.A., Shaw
+Research Student at the London School of Economics and
+Political Science. 1913; 200 pp., Demy 8vo. 7s. 6d. net.</p>
+
+<p class="right">
+<i>G. Bell and Sons.</i>
+</p>
+
+<p><b>34. Emigration from the United Kingdom to North
+America, 1763-1912.</b> By <span class="smcap">Stanley C. Johnson</span>, M.A.,
+Cambridge. 1913; xvi and 387 pp., Demy 8vo, cloth.
+6s. net.</p>
+
+<p class="right">
+<i>G. Routledge and Sons.</i>
+</p>
+
+
+<p><b>35. The Financing of the Hundred Years’ War from
+1337 to 1360.</b> By <span class="smcap">Schuyler B. Terry</span>. 1914; xvi and
+199 pp., Demy 8vo, cloth. 6s. net.</p>
+
+<p class="right">
+<i>Constable and Co.</i>
+</p>
+
+<p><b>36. Social Organisation and Kinship.</b> By <span class="smcap">W. H. R.
+Rivers</span>, M.D., F.R.S., Fellow of St. John’s College, Cambridge.
+1913; viii and 96 pp., Demy 8vo, cloth. 2s. 6d.
+net.</p>
+
+<p class="right">
+<i>Constable and Co.</i>
+</p>
+
+
+<p><i>Series of Bibliographies by Students of the School.</i></p>
+
+<p><b>1. A Bibliography of Unemployment and the Unemployed.</b>
+By <span class="smcap">F. Isabel Taylor</span>, B.Sc. (Econ.), London.
+Preface by <span class="smcap">Sidney Webb</span>, LL.B. 1909; xix and 71 pp.,
+Demy 8vo, cloth, 2s. net; paper, 1s. 6d. net.</p>
+
+<p class="right">
+<i>P. S. King and Son.</i>
+</p>
+
+<p><b>2. Two Select Bibliographies of Mediæval Historical
+Study.</b> By <span class="smcap">Margaret F. Moore</span>, M.A.; with Preface and
+Appendix by <span class="smcap">Hubert Hall</span>, F.S.A. 1912; pp. 185,
+Demy 8vo, cloth. 5s. net.</p>
+
+<p class="right">
+<i>Constable and Co.</i>
+</p>
+
+<p><b>3. Bibliography of Roads.</b> By <span class="smcap">Dorothy Ballen</span>: An
+enlarged and revised edition of a similar work compiled by
+Mr. and Mrs. Sidney Webb in 1906. With an introduction
+by Sir George Gibb. 1914; xviii. and 281 pp., Demy 8vo,
+cloth. 15s. net.</p>
+
+<p class="right">
+<i>P. S. King and Son.</i>
+</p>
+
+<p><b>4. A Select Bibliography for the Study, Sources, and
+Literature of English Mediæval Economic History.</b> Edited
+by <span class="smcap">Hubert Hall</span>, F.S.A. 1913; xiii and 350 pp., Demy
+8vo, cloth. 6s. net.</p>
+
+<p class="right">
+<i>P. S. King and Son.</i>
+</p>
+
+
+<p><i>Series of Geographical Studies.</i></p>
+
+<p><b>1. The Reigate Sheet of the One-inch Ordnance Survey.</b>
+A Study in the Geography of the Surrey Hills. By <span class="smcap">Ellen
+Smith</span>. Introduction by H. J. Mackinder, M.A., M.P.
+1910; xix and 110 pp., 6 maps, 23 illustrations. Crown
+8vo, cloth. 5s. net.</p>
+
+<p class="right">
+<i>A. and C. Black.</i>
+</p>
+
+
+
+
+<p><b>2. The Highlands of South-West Surrey.</b> A Geographical
+Study in Sand and Clay. By <span class="smcap">E. C. Matthews</span>. 1911; viii
+and 124 pp., 7 maps, 8 illustrations, 8vo, cloth. 5s. net.</p>
+
+<p class="right">
+<i>A. and C. Black.</i>
+</p>
+
+
+<p><i>Series of Contour Maps of Critical Areas.</i></p>
+
+<p><b>1. The Hudson-Mohawk Gap.</b> Prepared by the Diagram
+Company from a map by B. B. Dickinson. 1913; 1 sheet
+18 in. by 22&frac12; in. Scale 20 miles to 1 inch. 6d. net; post
+free, folded 7d., rolled 9d.</p>
+
+<p class="right">
+<i>Sifton, Praed and Co.</i>
+</p>
+
+</div></div>
+
+
+<div class="break footnotes">
+<h2 class="nobreak">FOOTNOTES</h2>
+
+
+<div class="footnote">
+
+<p><a name="Footnote_1_1" id="Footnote_1_1"></a><a href="#FNanchor_1_1"><span class="label">[1]</span></a> <cite>Systems of Consanguinity and Affinity of the Human Family: Smithsonian
+Contributions to Knowledge</cite>, vol. xvii.; Washington, 1871.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote">
+
+<p><a name="Footnote_2_2" id="Footnote_2_2"></a><a href="#FNanchor_2_2"><span class="label">[2]</span></a> <cite>Studies in Ancient History</cite>, 1st series, 1876, p. 331.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote">
+
+<p><a name="Footnote_3_3" id="Footnote_3_3"></a><a href="#FNanchor_3_3"><span class="label">[3]</span></a> <i>Op. cit.</i>, p. 373.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote">
+
+<p><a name="Footnote_4_4" id="Footnote_4_4"></a><a href="#FNanchor_4_4"><span class="label">[4]</span></a> <cite lang="de" xml:lang="de">Zur Urgeschichte der Ehe</cite>, Stuttgart, 1897 (reprinted from <cite lang="de" xml:lang="de">Zeitsch.
+f. vergleich. Rechtswiss.</cite>, 1897, xii., 187).</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote">
+
+<p><a name="Footnote_5_5" id="Footnote_5_5"></a><a href="#FNanchor_5_5"><span class="label">[5]</span></a> <cite>Journ. Roy. Anth. Inst.</cite>, 1909, xxxix, 77.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote">
+
+<p><a name="Footnote_6_6" id="Footnote_6_6"></a><a href="#FNanchor_6_6"><span class="label">[6]</span></a> The full account of these and other facts cited in these lectures will
+appear shortly in a work on <cite>The History of Melanesian Society</cite>, to be
+published by the Cambridge University Press.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote">
+
+<p><a name="Footnote_7_7" id="Footnote_7_7"></a><a href="#FNanchor_7_7"><span class="label">[7]</span></a> <i>Op. cit.</i>, p. 366.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote">
+
+<p><a name="Footnote_8_8" id="Footnote_8_8"></a><a href="#FNanchor_8_8"><span class="label">[8]</span></a> In this and other diagrams capital letters are used to represent men
+and the smaller letters women.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote">
+
+<p><a name="Footnote_9_9" id="Footnote_9_9"></a><a href="#FNanchor_9_9"><span class="label">[9]</span></a> Grant, <cite>Gazetteer of Central Provinces</cite>, Nagpur, 2nd ed., 1870, p. 276.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote">
+
+<p><a name="Footnote_10_10" id="Footnote_10_10"></a><a href="#FNanchor_10_10"><span class="label">[10]</span></a> <cite>The Melanesians</cite>, p. 38.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote">
+
+<p><a name="Footnote_11_11" id="Footnote_11_11"></a><a href="#FNanchor_11_11"><span class="label">[11]</span></a> I leave out of account here those cases in which members of different
+generations are denoted by a reciprocal term.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote">
+
+<p><a name="Footnote_12_12" id="Footnote_12_12"></a><a href="#FNanchor_12_12"><span class="label">[12]</span></a> <i>Op. cit.</i>, p. 384.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote">
+
+<p><a name="Footnote_13_13" id="Footnote_13_13"></a><a href="#FNanchor_13_13"><span class="label">[13]</span></a> <cite>Kinship Organisations and Group Marriage in Australia</cite>, Cambridge,
+1906, p. 123.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote">
+
+<p><a name="Footnote_14_14" id="Footnote_14_14"></a><a href="#FNanchor_14_14"><span class="label">[14]</span></a> This is the Mota name for Pentecost Island.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote">
+
+<p><a name="Footnote_15_15" id="Footnote_15_15"></a><a href="#FNanchor_15_15"><span class="label">[15]</span></a> Howitt, <cite>Native Tribes of South-East Australia</cite>, pp. 164, 177.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote">
+
+<p><a name="Footnote_16_16" id="Footnote_16_16"></a><a href="#FNanchor_16_16"><span class="label">[16]</span></a> <cite lang="de" xml:lang="de">Zeitsch. f. vergleich. Rechtswiss.</cite>, 1910, xxiii., 330.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote">
+
+<p><a name="Footnote_17_17" id="Footnote_17_17"></a><a href="#FNanchor_17_17"><span class="label">[17]</span></a> <cite>Rep. Cambridge Expedition to Torres Straits</cite>, vol. v., pp. 135 and 241.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote">
+
+<p><a name="Footnote_18_18" id="Footnote_18_18"></a><a href="#FNanchor_18_18"><span class="label">[18]</span></a> I know of no complete record of the terminology of the fourth chief
+language of South India, Malayalam.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote">
+
+<p><a name="Footnote_19_19" id="Footnote_19_19"></a><a href="#FNanchor_19_19"><span class="label">[19]</span></a> I take my data from the lists compiled for Morgan by the Rev. E. C.
+Scudder and the Rev. B. Rice, Morgan’s <cite>Systems ...</cite>, pp. 537-566.
+These lists are not complete, giving in some cases only the terms used in
+address. They agree in general with some lists compiled during the
+recent Indian Census which Mr. E. A. Gait has kindly sent to me.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote">
+
+<p><a name="Footnote_20_20" id="Footnote_20_20"></a><a href="#FNanchor_20_20"><span class="label">[20]</span></a> Rivers, <cite>The Todas</cite>, 1906, pp. 487, 512.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote">
+
+<p><a name="Footnote_21_21" id="Footnote_21_21"></a><a href="#FNanchor_21_21"><span class="label">[21]</span></a> <cite>Journal Royal Asiatic Society</cite>, 1907, p. 611.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote">
+
+<p><a name="Footnote_22_22" id="Footnote_22_22"></a><a href="#FNanchor_22_22"><span class="label">[22]</span></a> See Morgan, <cite>Systems ...</cite>, Table II.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote">
+
+<p><a name="Footnote_23_23" id="Footnote_23_23"></a><a href="#FNanchor_23_23"><span class="label">[23]</span></a> <i>Loc. cit.</i></p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote">
+
+<p><a name="Footnote_24_24" id="Footnote_24_24"></a><a href="#FNanchor_24_24"><span class="label">[24]</span></a> <cite>Dakota Grammar, Texts, and Ethnography: Contributions to North
+American Ethnology</cite>, Washington, vol. ix.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote">
+
+<p><a name="Footnote_25_25" id="Footnote_25_25"></a><a href="#FNanchor_25_25"><span class="label">[25]</span></a> Preface to above.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote">
+
+<p><a name="Footnote_26_26" id="Footnote_26_26"></a><a href="#FNanchor_26_26"><span class="label">[26]</span></a> <i>Op. cit.</i>, p. 82.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote">
+
+<p><a name="Footnote_27_27" id="Footnote_27_27"></a><a href="#FNanchor_27_27"><span class="label">[27]</span></a> Swanton, <cite>Contributions to the Ethnology of the Haidahs, Jesup
+North Pacific Expedition</cite>, 1905, vol. v., pt. i., p. 62. Miss Freire-Marreco
+tells me that the cross-cousin marriage occurs among some of the Hopi
+Indians.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote">
+
+<p><a name="Footnote_28_28" id="Footnote_28_28"></a><a href="#FNanchor_28_28"><span class="label">[28]</span></a> See <cite>The Melanesians of British New Guinea</cite>, Cambridge, 1910, p. 707.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote">
+
+<p><a name="Footnote_29_29" id="Footnote_29_29"></a><a href="#FNanchor_29_29"><span class="label">[29]</span></a> <i>Ibid.</i>, pp. 482 and 436.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote">
+
+<p><a name="Footnote_30_30" id="Footnote_30_30"></a><a href="#FNanchor_30_30"><span class="label">[30]</span></a> <cite>The Melanesians of British New Guinea</cite>, Cambridge, 1910, p. 482.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote">
+
+<p><a name="Footnote_31_31" id="Footnote_31_31"></a><a href="#FNanchor_31_31"><span class="label">[31]</span></a> Rep. Austral. Ass., 1900, viii., 301.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote">
+
+<p><a name="Footnote_32_32" id="Footnote_32_32"></a><a href="#FNanchor_32_32"><span class="label">[32]</span></a> See Tables in Morgan’s <cite>Systems ...</cite>, pp. 79-127.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote">
+
+<p><a name="Footnote_33_33" id="Footnote_33_33"></a><a href="#FNanchor_33_33"><span class="label">[33]</span></a> <cite>Anthropological Essays presented to E. B. Tylor</cite>, Oxford, 1907, p. 309.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote">
+
+<p><a name="Footnote_34_34" id="Footnote_34_34"></a><a href="#FNanchor_34_34"><span class="label">[34]</span></a> For the full evidence on these topics see my forthcoming book <cite>The
+History of Melanesian Society</cite>.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote">
+
+<p><a name="Footnote_35_35" id="Footnote_35_35"></a><a href="#FNanchor_35_35"><span class="label">[35]</span></a> <cite>Census of India</cite>, 1911, vol. xv., p. 234.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote">
+
+<p><a name="Footnote_36_36" id="Footnote_36_36"></a><a href="#FNanchor_36_36"><span class="label">[36]</span></a> In such a case the use of the term by other members of the household,
+including women, would be the result of a later extension of meaning.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote">
+
+<p><a name="Footnote_37_37" id="Footnote_37_37"></a><a href="#FNanchor_37_37"><span class="label">[37]</span></a> See also “Survival in Sociology,” <cite>Sociological Review</cite>, 1913, vol. vi.,
+p. 293. I hope shortly to deal more fully with the relations between
+sociology and social psychology.</p></div>
+</div>
+
+<hr class="full" />
+
+<div class="break transnote">
+<h2 class="nobreak">Transcriber's Note</h2>
+
+
+<p>The following apparent errors have been corrected:</p>
+
+<ul><li>p. 8 (note) "Rechtswiss" changed to "Rechtswiss."</li>
+
+<li>p. 20 "DIAGRAM" changed to "<span class="smcap">Diagram</span>"</li>
+
+<li>p. 20 "now becomes" changed to "now become"</li>
+
+<li>Advertisement "contemproary" changed to "contemporary"</li>
+
+<li>Advertisement "was Achieved" changed to "was Achieved."</li>
+
+<li>Advertisement "Commerical and Financial" changed to "Commercial and Financial"</li></ul>
+
+
+</div>
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+<pre>
+
+
+
+
+
+End of Project Gutenberg's Kinship and Social Organisation, by W. H. R. Rivers
+
+*** END OF THIS PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK KINSHIP AND SOCIAL ORGANISATION ***
+
+***** This file should be named 44728-h.htm or 44728-h.zip *****
+This and all associated files of various formats will be found in:
+        http://www.gutenberg.org/4/4/7/2/44728/
+
+Produced by Henry Flower and the Online Distributed
+Proofreading Team at http://www.pgdp.net (This file was
+produced from images generously made available by The
+Internet Archive/Canadian Libraries)
+
+
+Updated editions will replace the previous one--the old editions
+will be renamed.
+
+Creating the works from public domain print editions means that no
+one owns a United States copyright in these works, so the Foundation
+(and you!) can copy and distribute it in the United States without
+permission and without paying copyright royalties.  Special rules,
+set forth in the General Terms of Use part of this license, apply to
+copying and distributing Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works to
+protect the PROJECT GUTENBERG-tm concept and trademark.  Project
+Gutenberg is a registered trademark, and may not be used if you
+charge for the eBooks, unless you receive specific permission.  If you
+do not charge anything for copies of this eBook, complying with the
+rules is very easy.  You may use this eBook for nearly any purpose
+such as creation of derivative works, reports, performances and
+research.  They may be modified and printed and given away--you may do
+practically ANYTHING with public domain eBooks.  Redistribution is
+subject to the trademark license, especially commercial
+redistribution.
+
+
+
+*** START: FULL LICENSE ***
+
+THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG LICENSE
+PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU DISTRIBUTE OR USE THIS WORK
+
+To protect the Project Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting the free
+distribution of electronic works, by using or distributing this work
+(or any other work associated in any way with the phrase "Project
+Gutenberg"), you agree to comply with all the terms of the Full Project
+Gutenberg-tm License (available with this file or online at
+http://gutenberg.org/license).
+
+
+Section 1.  General Terms of Use and Redistributing Project Gutenberg-tm
+electronic works
+
+1.A.  By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg-tm
+electronic work, you indicate that you have read, understand, agree to
+and accept all the terms of this license and intellectual property
+(trademark/copyright) agreement.  If you do not agree to abide by all
+the terms of this agreement, you must cease using and return or destroy
+all copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in your possession.
+If you paid a fee for obtaining a copy of or access to a Project
+Gutenberg-tm electronic work and you do not agree to be bound by the
+terms of this agreement, you may obtain a refund from the person or
+entity to whom you paid the fee as set forth in paragraph 1.E.8.
+
+1.B.  "Project Gutenberg" is a registered trademark.  It may only be
+used on or associated in any way with an electronic work by people who
+agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement.  There are a few
+things that you can do with most Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works
+even without complying with the full terms of this agreement.  See
+paragraph 1.C below.  There are a lot of things you can do with Project
+Gutenberg-tm electronic works if you follow the terms of this agreement
+and help preserve free future access to Project Gutenberg-tm electronic
+works.  See paragraph 1.E below.
+
+1.C.  The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation ("the Foundation"
+or PGLAF), owns a compilation copyright in the collection of Project
+Gutenberg-tm electronic works.  Nearly all the individual works in the
+collection are in the public domain in the United States.  If an
+individual work is in the public domain in the United States and you are
+located in the United States, we do not claim a right to prevent you from
+copying, distributing, performing, displaying or creating derivative
+works based on the work as long as all references to Project Gutenberg
+are removed.  Of course, we hope that you will support the Project
+Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting free access to electronic works by
+freely sharing Project Gutenberg-tm works in compliance with the terms of
+this agreement for keeping the Project Gutenberg-tm name associated with
+the work.  You can easily comply with the terms of this agreement by
+keeping this work in the same format with its attached full Project
+Gutenberg-tm License when you share it without charge with others.
+
+1.D.  The copyright laws of the place where you are located also govern
+what you can do with this work.  Copyright laws in most countries are in
+a constant state of change.  If you are outside the United States, check
+the laws of your country in addition to the terms of this agreement
+before downloading, copying, displaying, performing, distributing or
+creating derivative works based on this work or any other Project
+Gutenberg-tm work.  The Foundation makes no representations concerning
+the copyright status of any work in any country outside the United
+States.
+
+1.E.  Unless you have removed all references to Project Gutenberg:
+
+1.E.1.  The following sentence, with active links to, or other immediate
+access to, the full Project Gutenberg-tm License must appear prominently
+whenever any copy of a Project Gutenberg-tm work (any work on which the
+phrase "Project Gutenberg" appears, or with which the phrase "Project
+Gutenberg" is associated) is accessed, displayed, performed, viewed,
+copied or distributed:
+
+This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere at no cost and with
+almost no restrictions whatsoever.  You may copy it, give it away or
+re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included
+with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org/license
+
+1.E.2.  If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is derived
+from the public domain (does not contain a notice indicating that it is
+posted with permission of the copyright holder), the work can be copied
+and distributed to anyone in the United States without paying any fees
+or charges.  If you are redistributing or providing access to a work
+with the phrase "Project Gutenberg" associated with or appearing on the
+work, you must comply either with the requirements of paragraphs 1.E.1
+through 1.E.7 or obtain permission for the use of the work and the
+Project Gutenberg-tm trademark as set forth in paragraphs 1.E.8 or
+1.E.9.
+
+1.E.3.  If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is posted
+with the permission of the copyright holder, your use and distribution
+must comply with both paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 and any additional
+terms imposed by the copyright holder.  Additional terms will be linked
+to the Project Gutenberg-tm License for all works posted with the
+permission of the copyright holder found at the beginning of this work.
+
+1.E.4.  Do not unlink or detach or remove the full Project Gutenberg-tm
+License terms from this work, or any files containing a part of this
+work or any other work associated with Project Gutenberg-tm.
+
+1.E.5.  Do not copy, display, perform, distribute or redistribute this
+electronic work, or any part of this electronic work, without
+prominently displaying the sentence set forth in paragraph 1.E.1 with
+active links or immediate access to the full terms of the Project
+Gutenberg-tm License.
+
+1.E.6.  You may convert to and distribute this work in any binary,
+compressed, marked up, nonproprietary or proprietary form, including any
+word processing or hypertext form.  However, if you provide access to or
+distribute copies of a Project Gutenberg-tm work in a format other than
+"Plain Vanilla ASCII" or other format used in the official version
+posted on the official Project Gutenberg-tm web site (www.gutenberg.org),
+you must, at no additional cost, fee or expense to the user, provide a
+copy, a means of exporting a copy, or a means of obtaining a copy upon
+request, of the work in its original "Plain Vanilla ASCII" or other
+form.  Any alternate format must include the full Project Gutenberg-tm
+License as specified in paragraph 1.E.1.
+
+1.E.7.  Do not charge a fee for access to, viewing, displaying,
+performing, copying or distributing any Project Gutenberg-tm works
+unless you comply with paragraph 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.
+
+1.E.8.  You may charge a reasonable fee for copies of or providing
+access to or distributing Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works provided
+that
+
+- You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you derive from
+     the use of Project Gutenberg-tm works calculated using the method
+     you already use to calculate your applicable taxes.  The fee is
+     owed to the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm trademark, but he
+     has agreed to donate royalties under this paragraph to the
+     Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation.  Royalty payments
+     must be paid within 60 days following each date on which you
+     prepare (or are legally required to prepare) your periodic tax
+     returns.  Royalty payments should be clearly marked as such and
+     sent to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation at the
+     address specified in Section 4, "Information about donations to
+     the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation."
+
+- You provide a full refund of any money paid by a user who notifies
+     you in writing (or by e-mail) within 30 days of receipt that s/he
+     does not agree to the terms of the full Project Gutenberg-tm
+     License.  You must require such a user to return or
+     destroy all copies of the works possessed in a physical medium
+     and discontinue all use of and all access to other copies of
+     Project Gutenberg-tm works.
+
+- You provide, in accordance with paragraph 1.F.3, a full refund of any
+     money paid for a work or a replacement copy, if a defect in the
+     electronic work is discovered and reported to you within 90 days
+     of receipt of the work.
+
+- You comply with all other terms of this agreement for free
+     distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm works.
+
+1.E.9.  If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a Project Gutenberg-tm
+electronic work or group of works on different terms than are set
+forth in this agreement, you must obtain permission in writing from
+both the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation and Michael
+Hart, the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm trademark.  Contact the
+Foundation as set forth in Section 3 below.
+
+1.F.
+
+1.F.1.  Project Gutenberg volunteers and employees expend considerable
+effort to identify, do copyright research on, transcribe and proofread
+public domain works in creating the Project Gutenberg-tm
+collection.  Despite these efforts, Project Gutenberg-tm electronic
+works, and the medium on which they may be stored, may contain
+"Defects," such as, but not limited to, incomplete, inaccurate or
+corrupt data, transcription errors, a copyright or other intellectual
+property infringement, a defective or damaged disk or other medium, a
+computer virus, or computer codes that damage or cannot be read by
+your equipment.
+
+1.F.2.  LIMITED WARRANTY, DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES - Except for the "Right
+of Replacement or Refund" described in paragraph 1.F.3, the Project
+Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the owner of the Project
+Gutenberg-tm trademark, and any other party distributing a Project
+Gutenberg-tm electronic work under this agreement, disclaim all
+liability to you for damages, costs and expenses, including legal
+fees.  YOU AGREE THAT YOU HAVE NO REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE, STRICT
+LIABILITY, BREACH OF WARRANTY OR BREACH OF CONTRACT EXCEPT THOSE
+PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH 1.F.3.  YOU AGREE THAT THE FOUNDATION, THE
+TRADEMARK OWNER, AND ANY DISTRIBUTOR UNDER THIS AGREEMENT WILL NOT BE
+LIABLE TO YOU FOR ACTUAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE OR
+INCIDENTAL DAMAGES EVEN IF YOU GIVE NOTICE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH
+DAMAGE.
+
+1.F.3.  LIMITED RIGHT OF REPLACEMENT OR REFUND - If you discover a
+defect in this electronic work within 90 days of receiving it, you can
+receive a refund of the money (if any) you paid for it by sending a
+written explanation to the person you received the work from.  If you
+received the work on a physical medium, you must return the medium with
+your written explanation.  The person or entity that provided you with
+the defective work may elect to provide a replacement copy in lieu of a
+refund.  If you received the work electronically, the person or entity
+providing it to you may choose to give you a second opportunity to
+receive the work electronically in lieu of a refund.  If the second copy
+is also defective, you may demand a refund in writing without further
+opportunities to fix the problem.
+
+1.F.4.  Except for the limited right of replacement or refund set forth
+in paragraph 1.F.3, this work is provided to you 'AS-IS' WITH NO OTHER
+WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO
+WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PURPOSE.
+
+1.F.5.  Some states do not allow disclaimers of certain implied
+warranties or the exclusion or limitation of certain types of damages.
+If any disclaimer or limitation set forth in this agreement violates the
+law of the state applicable to this agreement, the agreement shall be
+interpreted to make the maximum disclaimer or limitation permitted by
+the applicable state law.  The invalidity or unenforceability of any
+provision of this agreement shall not void the remaining provisions.
+
+1.F.6.  INDEMNITY - You agree to indemnify and hold the Foundation, the
+trademark owner, any agent or employee of the Foundation, anyone
+providing copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in accordance
+with this agreement, and any volunteers associated with the production,
+promotion and distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works,
+harmless from all liability, costs and expenses, including legal fees,
+that arise directly or indirectly from any of the following which you do
+or cause to occur: (a) distribution of this or any Project Gutenberg-tm
+work, (b) alteration, modification, or additions or deletions to any
+Project Gutenberg-tm work, and (c) any Defect you cause.
+
+
+Section  2.  Information about the Mission of Project Gutenberg-tm
+
+Project Gutenberg-tm is synonymous with the free distribution of
+electronic works in formats readable by the widest variety of computers
+including obsolete, old, middle-aged and new computers.  It exists
+because of the efforts of hundreds of volunteers and donations from
+people in all walks of life.
+
+Volunteers and financial support to provide volunteers with the
+assistance they need, are critical to reaching Project Gutenberg-tm's
+goals and ensuring that the Project Gutenberg-tm collection will
+remain freely available for generations to come.  In 2001, the Project
+Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation was created to provide a secure
+and permanent future for Project Gutenberg-tm and future generations.
+To learn more about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation
+and how your efforts and donations can help, see Sections 3 and 4
+and the Foundation web page at http://www.pglaf.org.
+
+
+Section 3.  Information about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive
+Foundation
+
+The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation is a non profit
+501(c)(3) educational corporation organized under the laws of the
+state of Mississippi and granted tax exempt status by the Internal
+Revenue Service.  The Foundation's EIN or federal tax identification
+number is 64-6221541.  Its 501(c)(3) letter is posted at
+http://pglaf.org/fundraising.  Contributions to the Project Gutenberg
+Literary Archive Foundation are tax deductible to the full extent
+permitted by U.S. federal laws and your state's laws.
+
+The Foundation's principal office is located at 4557 Melan Dr. S.
+Fairbanks, AK, 99712., but its volunteers and employees are scattered
+throughout numerous locations.  Its business office is located at
+809 North 1500 West, Salt Lake City, UT 84116, (801) 596-1887, email
+business@pglaf.org.  Email contact links and up to date contact
+information can be found at the Foundation's web site and official
+page at http://pglaf.org
+
+For additional contact information:
+     Dr. Gregory B. Newby
+     Chief Executive and Director
+     gbnewby@pglaf.org
+
+
+Section 4.  Information about Donations to the Project Gutenberg
+Literary Archive Foundation
+
+Project Gutenberg-tm depends upon and cannot survive without wide
+spread public support and donations to carry out its mission of
+increasing the number of public domain and licensed works that can be
+freely distributed in machine readable form accessible by the widest
+array of equipment including outdated equipment.  Many small donations
+($1 to $5,000) are particularly important to maintaining tax exempt
+status with the IRS.
+
+The Foundation is committed to complying with the laws regulating
+charities and charitable donations in all 50 states of the United
+States.  Compliance requirements are not uniform and it takes a
+considerable effort, much paperwork and many fees to meet and keep up
+with these requirements.  We do not solicit donations in locations
+where we have not received written confirmation of compliance.  To
+SEND DONATIONS or determine the status of compliance for any
+particular state visit http://pglaf.org
+
+While we cannot and do not solicit contributions from states where we
+have not met the solicitation requirements, we know of no prohibition
+against accepting unsolicited donations from donors in such states who
+approach us with offers to donate.
+
+International donations are gratefully accepted, but we cannot make
+any statements concerning tax treatment of donations received from
+outside the United States.  U.S. laws alone swamp our small staff.
+
+Please check the Project Gutenberg Web pages for current donation
+methods and addresses.  Donations are accepted in a number of other
+ways including checks, online payments and credit card donations.
+To donate, please visit: http://pglaf.org/donate
+
+
+Section 5.  General Information About Project Gutenberg-tm electronic
+works.
+
+Professor Michael S. Hart is the originator of the Project Gutenberg-tm
+concept of a library of electronic works that could be freely shared
+with anyone.  For thirty years, he produced and distributed Project
+Gutenberg-tm eBooks with only a loose network of volunteer support.
+
+
+Project Gutenberg-tm eBooks are often created from several printed
+editions, all of which are confirmed as Public Domain in the U.S.
+unless a copyright notice is included.  Thus, we do not necessarily
+keep eBooks in compliance with any particular paper edition.
+
+
+Most people start at our Web site which has the main PG search facility:
+
+     http://www.gutenberg.org
+
+This Web site includes information about Project Gutenberg-tm,
+including how to make donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary
+Archive Foundation, how to help produce our new eBooks, and how to
+subscribe to our email newsletter to hear about new eBooks.
+
+
+</pre>
+
+</body>
+</html>
diff --git a/old/44728-h/images/cover.jpg b/old/44728-h/images/cover.jpg
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..39b2119
--- /dev/null
+++ b/old/44728-h/images/cover.jpg
diff --git a/old/44728-h/images/zill_t020.png b/old/44728-h/images/zill_t020.png
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..88086ef
--- /dev/null
+++ b/old/44728-h/images/zill_t020.png
diff --git a/old/44728-h/images/zill_t029.png b/old/44728-h/images/zill_t029.png
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..9809633
--- /dev/null
+++ b/old/44728-h/images/zill_t029.png
diff --git a/old/44728-h/images/zill_t035a.png b/old/44728-h/images/zill_t035a.png
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..84f734c
--- /dev/null
+++ b/old/44728-h/images/zill_t035a.png
diff --git a/old/44728-h/images/zill_t035b.png b/old/44728-h/images/zill_t035b.png
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..f7d30d5
--- /dev/null
+++ b/old/44728-h/images/zill_t035b.png
diff --git a/old/44728-h/images/zill_t041.png b/old/44728-h/images/zill_t041.png
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..e9d103d
--- /dev/null
+++ b/old/44728-h/images/zill_t041.png
diff --git a/old/44728.txt b/old/44728.txt
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..7d1c1ff
--- /dev/null
+++ b/old/44728.txt
@@ -0,0 +1,3445 @@
+Project Gutenberg's Kinship and Social Organisation, by W. H. R. Rivers
+
+This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere at no cost and with
+almost no restrictions whatsoever.  You may copy it, give it away or
+re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included
+with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org/license
+
+
+Title: Kinship and Social Organisation
+
+Author: W. H. R. Rivers
+
+Release Date: January 22, 2014 [EBook #44728]
+
+Language: English
+
+Character set encoding: ASCII
+
+*** START OF THIS PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK KINSHIP AND SOCIAL ORGANISATION ***
+
+
+
+
+Produced by Henry Flower and the Online Distributed
+Proofreading Team at http://www.pgdp.net (This file was
+produced from images generously made available by The
+Internet Archive/Canadian Libraries)
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+  STUDIES IN ECONOMIC AND POLITICAL SCIENCE
+
+  Edited by the HON. W. PEMBER REEVES
+
+  _Director of the London School of Economics and Political Science_
+
+  No. 36 in the Series of Monographs by Writers connected
+  with the London School of Economics and Political Science.
+
+
+  KINSHIP AND SOCIAL ORGANISATION
+
+
+
+
+  Kinship and
+
+  Social Organisation
+
+
+  By
+
+  W. H. R. RIVERS, M.D., F.R.S.,
+
+  Fellow of St. John's College, Cambridge
+
+
+  LONDON
+  CONSTABLE & CO LTD
+  1914
+
+
+
+
+CONTENTS
+
+
+                 PAGE
+
+  PREFACE        vii.
+
+  LECTURE I         1
+
+  LECTURE II       28
+
+  LECTURE III      60
+
+  INDEX            95
+
+
+
+
+PREFACE.
+
+
+These lectures were delivered at the London School of Economics in May
+of the present year. They are largely based on experience gained in the
+work of the Percy Sladen Trust Expedition to Melanesia of 1908, and
+give a simplified record of social conditions which will be described
+in detail in the full account of the work of that expedition.
+
+A few small additions and modifications have been made since the
+lectures were given, some of these being due to suggestions made by
+Professor Westermarck and Dr. Malinowski in the discussions which
+followed the lectures. I am also indebted to Miss B. Freire-Marreco
+for allowing me to refer to unpublished material collected during her
+recent work among the Pueblo Indians of North America.
+
+  W. H. R. RIVERS.
+
+  St. John's College,
+  Cambridge.
+  _November 19th, 1913._
+
+
+
+
+KINSHIP AND SOCIAL
+
+ORGANISATION
+
+
+
+
+LECTURE I
+
+
+The aim of these lectures is to demonstrate the close connection which
+exists between methods of denoting relationship or kinship and forms
+of social organisation, including those based on different varieties
+of the institution of marriage. In other words, my aim will be to show
+that the terminology of relationship has been rigorously determined
+by social conditions and that, if this position has been established
+and accepted, systems of relationship furnish us with a most valuable
+instrument in studying the history of social institutions.
+
+In the controversy of the present and of recent times, it is the
+special mode of denoting relationship known as the classificatory
+system which has formed the chief subject of discussion. It is in
+connection with this system that there have arisen the various vexed
+questions which have so excited the interest--I might almost say the
+passions--of sociologists during the last quarter of a century.
+
+I am afraid it would be dangerous to assume your familiarity with this
+system, and I must therefore begin with a brief description of its
+main characters. The essential feature of the classificatory system,
+that to which it owes its name, is the application of its terms, not
+to single individual persons, but to classes of relatives which may
+often be very large. Objections have been made to the use of the term
+"classificatory" on the ground that our own terms of relationship also
+apply to classes of persons; the term "brother," for instance, to all
+the male children of the same father and mother, the term "uncle" to
+all the brothers of the father and mother as well as to the husband
+of an aunt, while the term "cousin" may denote a still larger class.
+It is, of course, true that many of our own terms of relationship
+apply to classes of persons, but in the systems to which the word
+"classificatory" is usually applied, the classificatory principle
+applies far more widely, and in some cases even, more logically and
+consistently. In the most complete form of the classificatory system
+there is not one single term of relationship the use of which tells
+us that reference is being made to one person and to one person only,
+whereas in our own system there are six such terms, viz., husband,
+wife, father, mother, father-in-law and mother-in-law. In those systems
+in which the classificatory principle is carried to its extreme degree
+every term is applied to a class of persons. The term "father," for
+instance, is applied to all those whom the father would call brother,
+and to all the husbands of those whom the mother calls sister,
+both brother and sister being used in a far wider sense than among
+ourselves. In some forms of the classificatory system the term "father"
+is also used for all those whom the mother would call brother, and for
+all the husbands of those whom the father would call sister, and in
+other systems the application of the term may be still more extensive.
+Similarly, the term used for the wife may be applied to all those whom
+the wife would call sister and to the wives of all those whom the
+speaker calls brother, brother and sister again being used in a far
+wider sense than in our own language.
+
+The classificatory system has many other features which mark it off
+more or less sharply from our own mode of denoting relationship, but I
+do not think it would be profitable to attempt a full description at
+this stage of our enquiry. As I have said, the object of these lectures
+is to show how the various features of the classificatory system have
+arisen out of, and can therefore be explained historically by, social
+facts. If you are not already acquainted with these features, you will
+learn to know them the more easily if at the same time you learn how
+they have come into existence.
+
+I will begin with a brief history of the subject. So long as it was
+supposed that all the peoples of the world denoted relationship in the
+same way, namely, that which is customary among ourselves, there was
+no problem. There was no reason why the subject should have awakened
+any interest, and so far as I have been able to find, it is only since
+the discovery of the classificatory system of relationship that the
+problem now before us was ever raised. I imagine that, if students ever
+thought about the matter at all, it must have seemed obvious that the
+way in which they and the other known peoples of the world used terms
+of relationship was conditioned and determined by the social relations
+which the terms denoted.
+
+The state of affairs became very different as soon as it was known that
+many peoples of the world use terms of relationship in a manner, and
+according to rules, so widely different from our own that they seem to
+belong to an altogether different order, a difference well illustrated
+by the confusion which is apt to arise when we use English words in
+the translation of classificatory terms or classificatory terms as the
+equivalents of our own. The difficulty or impossibility of conforming
+to complete truth and reality, when we attempt this task, is the best
+witness to the fundamental difference between the two modes of denoting
+relationship.
+
+I do not know of any discovery in the whole range of science which
+can be more certainly put to the credit of one man than that of the
+classificatory system of relationship by Lewis Morgan. By this I mean,
+not merely that he was the first to point out clearly the existence of
+this mode of denoting relationship, but that it was he who collected
+the vast mass of material by which the essential characters of the
+system were demonstrated, and it was he who was the first to recognise
+the great theoretical importance of his new discovery. It is the denial
+of this importance by his contemporaries and successors which furnishes
+the best proof of the credit which is due to him for the discovery.
+The very extent of the material he collected[1] has probably done much
+to obstruct the recognition of the importance of his work. It is a
+somewhat discouraging thought that, if Morgan had been less industrious
+and had amassed a smaller collection of material which could have been
+embodied in a more available form, the value of his work would probably
+have been far more widely recognised than it is to-day. The volume
+of his material is, however, only a subsidiary factor in the process
+which has led to the neglect or rejection of the importance of Morgan's
+discovery. The chief cause of the neglect is one for which Morgan must
+himself largely bear the blame. He was not content to demonstrate, as
+he might to some extent have done from his own material, the close
+connection between the terminology of the classificatory system of
+relationship and forms of social organisation. There can be little
+doubt that he recognised this connection, but he was not content to
+demonstrate the dependence of the terminology of relationship upon
+social forms the existence of which was already known, or which were
+capable of demonstration with the material at his disposal. He passed
+over all these early stages of the argument, and proceeded directly to
+refer the origin of the terminology to forms of social organisation
+which were not known to exist anywhere on the earth and of which there
+was no direct evidence in the past. When, further, the social condition
+which Morgan was led to formulate was one of general promiscuity
+developing into group-marriage, conditions bitterly repugnant to the
+sentiments of most civilised persons, it is not surprising that he
+aroused a mass of heated opposition which led, not merely to widespread
+rejection of his views, but also to the neglect of lessons to be learnt
+from his new discovery which must have received general recognition
+long before this, if they had not been obscured by other issues.
+
+[1] _Systems of Consanguinity and Affinity of the Human Family:
+Smithsonian Contributions to Knowledge_, vol. xvii.; Washington, 1871.
+
+The first to take up the cudgels in opposition to Morgan was our own
+pioneer in the study of the early forms of human society, John Ferguson
+McLennan.[2] He criticised the views of Morgan severely and often
+justly, and then pointing out, as was then believed to be the case,
+that no duties or rights were connected with the relationships of the
+classificatory system, he concluded that the terms formed merely a
+code of courtesies and ceremonial addresses for social intercourse.
+Those who have followed him have usually been content to repeat the
+conclusion that the classificatory system is nothing more than a
+body of mutual salutations and terms of address. They have failed to
+see that it still remains necessary to explain how the terms of the
+classificatory system came to be used in mutual salutation. They have
+failed to recognise that they were either rejecting the principle of
+determinism in sociology, or were only putting back to a conveniently
+remote distance the consideration of the problem how and why the
+classificatory terms came to be used in the way now customary among so
+many peoples of the earth.
+
+[2] _Studies in Ancient History_, 1st series, 1876, p. 331.
+
+This aspect of the problem, which has been neglected or put on one
+side by the followers of McLennan, was not so treated by McLennan
+himself. As we should expect from the general character of his work,
+McLennan clearly recognised that the classificatory system must have
+been determined by social conditions, and he tried to show how it might
+have arisen as the result of the change from the Nair to the Tibetan
+form of polyandry.[3] He even went so far as to formulate varieties
+of this process by means of which there might have been produced the
+chief varieties of the classificatory system, the existence of which
+had been demonstrated by Morgan. It is quite clear that McLennan had no
+doubts about the necessity of tracing back the social institution of
+the classificatory system of relationship to social causes, a necessity
+which has been ignored or even explicitly denied by those who have
+followed him in rejecting the views of Morgan. It is one of the many
+unfortunate consequences of McLennan's belief in the importance of
+polyandry in the history of human society that it has helped to prevent
+his followers from seeing the social importance of the classificatory
+system. They have failed to see that the classificatory system may be
+the result neither of promiscuity nor of polyandry, and yet have been
+determined, both in its general character and in its details, by forms
+of social organisation.
+
+[3] _Op. cit._, p. 373.
+
+Since the time of Morgan and McLennan few have attempted to deal with
+the question in any comprehensive manner. The problem has inevitably
+been involved in the controversy which has raged between the advocates
+of the original promiscuity or the primitive monogamy of mankind,
+but most of the former have been ready to accept Morgan's views
+blindly, while the latter have been content to try to explain away
+the importance of conclusions derived from the classificatory system
+without attempting any real study of the evidence. On the side of
+Morgan there has been one exception in the person of Professor J.
+Kohler,[4] who has recognised the lines on which the problem must be
+studied, while on the other side there has been, so far as I am aware,
+only one writer who has recognised that the evidence from the nature
+of the classificatory system of relationship cannot be ignored or
+belittled, but must be faced and some explanation alternative to that
+of Morgan provided.
+
+[4] _Zur Urgeschichte der Ehe_, Stuttgart, 1897 (reprinted from
+_Zeitsch. f. vergleich. Rechtswiss._, 1897, xii., 187).
+
+This attempt was made four years ago by Professor Kroeber,[5] of the
+University of California. The line he takes is absolutely to reject
+the view common to both Morgan and McLennan that the nature of the
+classificatory system has been determined by social conditions.
+He explicitly rejects the view that the mode of using terms of
+relationship depends on social causes, and puts forward as the
+alternative that they are conditioned by causes purely linguistic and
+psychological.
+
+[5] _Journ. Roy. Anth. Inst._, 1909, xxxix, 77.
+
+It is not quite easy to understand what is meant by the linguistic
+causation of terms of relationship. In the summary at the end of
+his paper Kroeber concludes that "they (terms of relationship) are
+determined primarily by language." Terms of relationship, however, are
+elements of language, so that Kroeber's proposition is that elements
+of language are determined primarily by language. In so far as this
+proposition has any meaning, it must be that, in the process of seeking
+the origin of linguistic phenomena, it is our business to ignore any
+but linguistic facts. It would follow that the student of the subject
+should seek the antecedents of linguistic phenomena in other linguistic
+phenomena, and put on one side as not germane to his task all reference
+to the objects and relations which the words denote and connote.
+
+Professor Kroeber's alternative proposition is that terms of
+relationship reflect psychology, not sociology, or, in other words,
+that the way in which terms of relationship are used depends on a
+chain of causation in which psychological processes are the direct
+antecedents of this use. I will try to make his meaning clear by means
+of an instance which he himself gives. He says that at the present time
+there is a tendency among ourselves to speak of the brother-in-law as
+a brother; in other words, we tend to class the brother-in-law and the
+brother together in the nomenclature of our own system of relationship.
+He supposes that we do this because there is a psychological similarity
+between the two relationships which leads us to class them together in
+our customary nomenclature. I shall return both to this and other of
+his examples later.
+
+We have now seen that the opponents of Morgan have taken up two main
+positions which it is possible to attack: one, that the classificatory
+system is nothing more than a body of terms of address; the other,
+that it and other modes of denoting relationship are determined by
+psychological and not by sociological causes. I propose to consider
+these two positions in turn.
+
+Morgan himself was evidently deeply impressed by the function of the
+classificatory system of relationship as a body of salutations. His
+own experience was derived from the North American Indians, and he
+notes the exclusive use of terms of relationship in address, a usage
+so habitual that an omission to recognise a relative in this manner
+would amount almost to an affront. Morgan also points out, as one
+motive for the custom, the presence of a reluctance to utter personal
+names. McLennan had to rely entirely on the evidence collected by
+Morgan, and there can be no doubt that he was greatly influenced by
+the stress Morgan himself laid on the function of the classificatory
+terms as mutual salutations. That in rude societies certain relatives
+have social functions definitely assigned to them by custom was
+known in Morgan's time, and I think it might even then have been
+discovered that the relationships which carried these functions were
+of the classificatory kind. It is, however, only by more recent work,
+beginning with that of Howitt, of Spencer and Gillen, and of Roth
+in Australia, and of the Cambridge Expedition to Torres Straits,
+that the great importance of the functions of relatives through
+the classificatory system has been forced upon the attention of
+sociologists. The social and ceremonial proceedings of the Australian
+aborigines abound in features in which special functions are performed
+by such relatives as the elder brother or the brother of the mother,
+while in Torres Straits I was able to record large groups of duties,
+privileges and restrictions associated with different classificatory
+relationships.
+
+Further work has shown that widely, though not universally, the
+nomenclature of the classificatory system carries with it a number of
+clearly defined social practices. One who applies a given term of
+relationship to another person has to behave towards that person in
+certain definite ways. He has to perform certain duties towards him,
+and enjoys certain privileges, and is subject to certain restrictions
+in his conduct in relation to him. These duties, privileges and
+restrictions vary greatly in number among different peoples, but
+wherever they exist, I know of no exception to their importance and
+to the regard in which they are held by all members of the community.
+You doubtless know of many examples of such functions associated with
+relationship, and I need give only one example.
+
+In the Banks Islands the term used between two brothers-in-law is
+_wulus_, _walus_, or _walui_, and a man who applies one of these terms
+to another may not utter his name, nor may the two behave familiarly
+towards one another in any way. In one island, Merlav, these relatives
+have all their possessions in common, and it is the duty of one to
+help the other in any difficulty, to warn him in danger, and, if need
+be, to die with him. If one dies, the other has to help to support
+his widow and has to abstain from certain foods. Further, there are
+a number of curious regulations in which the sanctity of the head
+plays a great part. A man must take nothing from above the head of his
+brother-in-law, nor may he even eat a bird which has flown over his
+head. A person has only to say of an object "That is the head of your
+brother-in-law," and the person addressed will have to desist from the
+use of the object. If the object is edible, it may not be eaten; if it
+is one which is being manufactured, such as a mat, the person addressed
+will have to cease from his work if the object be thus called the head
+of his brother-in-law. He will only be allowed to finish it on making
+compensation, not to the person who has prevented the work by reference
+to the head, but to the brother-in-law whose head had been mentioned.
+Ludicrous as some of these customs may seem to us, they are very far
+from being so to those who practise them. They show clearly the very
+important part taken in the lives of those who use the classificatory
+system by the social functions associated with relationship. As I
+have said, these functions are not universally associated with the
+classificatory system, but they are very general in many parts of the
+world and only need more careful investigation to be found even more
+general and more important than appears at present.
+
+Let us now look at our own system of relationship from this point
+of view. Two striking features present themselves. First, the great
+paucity of definite social functions associated with relationship,
+and secondly, the almost complete limitation of such functions to
+those relationships which apply only to individual persons and not
+to classes of persons. Of such relationships as cousin, uncle, aunt,
+father-in-law, or mother-in-law there may be said to be no definite
+social functions. A school-boy believes it is the duty of his uncle
+to tip him, but this is about as near as one can get to any social
+obligation on the part of this relative.
+
+The same will be found to hold good to a large extent if we turn to
+those social regulations which have been embodied in our laws. It is
+only in the case of the transmission of hereditary rank and of the
+property of a person dying intestate that more distant relatives are
+brought into any legal relationship with one another, and then only
+if there is an absence of nearer relatives. It is only when forced to
+do so by exceptional circumstances that the law recognises any of the
+persons to whom the more classificatory of our terms of relationship
+apply. If we pay regard to the social functions associated with
+relationship, it is our own system, rather than the classificatory,
+which is open to the reproach that its relationships carry into them no
+rights and duties.
+
+In the course of the recent work of the Percy Sladen Trust Expedition
+in Melanesia and Polynesia I have been able to collect a body of facts
+which bring out, even more clearly than has hitherto been recognised,
+the dependence of classificatory terms on social rights.[6] The
+classificatory systems of Oceania vary greatly in character. In some
+places relationships are definitely distinguished in nomenclature
+which are classed with other relationships elsewhere. Thus, while
+most Melanesian and some Polynesian systems have a definite term for
+the mother's brother and for the class of relatives whom the mother
+calls brother, in other systems this relative is classed with, and
+is denoted by, the same term as the father. The point to which I now
+call your attention is that there is a very close correlation between
+the presence of a special term for this relative and the presence of
+special functions attached to the relationship.
+
+[6] The full account of these and other facts cited in these lectures
+will appear shortly in a work on _The History of Melanesian Society_,
+to be published by the Cambridge University Press.
+
+In Polynesia, both the Hawaiians and the inhabitants of Niue class the
+mother's brother with the father, and in neither place was I able to
+discover that there were any special duties, privileges or restrictions
+ascribed to the mother's brother. In the Polynesian islands of Tonga
+and Tikopia, on the other hand, where there are special terms for
+the mother's brother, this relative has also special functions. The
+only place in Melanesia where I failed to find a special term for the
+mother's brother was in the western Solomon Islands, and that was
+also the only part of Melanesia where I failed to find any trace of
+special social functions ascribed to this relative. I do not know of
+such functions in Santa Cruz, but my information about the system of
+that island is derived from others, and further research will almost
+certainly show that they are present.
+
+In my own experience, then, among two different peoples, I have been
+able to establish a definite correlation between the presence of
+a term of relationship and special functions associated with the
+relationship. Information kindly given to me by Father Egidi, however,
+seems to show that the correlation among the Melanesians is not
+complete. In Mekeo, the mother's brother has the duty of putting on the
+first perineal garment of his nephew, but he has no special term and is
+classed with the father. Among the Kuni, on the other hand, there is
+a definite term for the mother's brother distinguishing him from the
+father, but yet he has not, so far as Father Egidi knows, any special
+functions.
+
+Both in Melanesia and Polynesia a similar correlation comes out in
+connection with other relationships, the most prominent exception
+being the absence of a special term for the father's sister in the
+Banks Islands, although this relative has very definite and important
+functions. In these islands the father's sister is classed with the
+mother as _vev_ or _veve_, but even here, where the generalisation
+seems to break down, it does not do so completely, for the father's
+sister is distinguished from the mother as _veve vus rawe_, the mother
+who kills a pig, as opposed to the simple _veve_ used for the mother
+and her sisters.
+
+There is thus definite evidence, not only for the association of
+classificatory terms of relationship with special social functions, but
+from one part of the world we now have evidence which shows that the
+presence or absence of special terms is largely dependent on whether
+there are or are not such functions. We may take it as established that
+the terms of the classificatory system are not, as McLennan supposed,
+merely terms of address and modes of mutual salutation. McLennan came
+to this conclusion because he believed that the classificatory terms
+were associated with no such functions as those of which we now have
+abundant evidence. He asks, "What duties or rights are affected by the
+relationships comprised in the classificatory system?" and answers
+himself according to the knowledge at his disposal, "Absolutely
+none."[7] This passage makes it clear that, if McLennan had known what
+we know to-day, he would never have taken up the line of attack upon
+Morgan's position in which he has had, and still has, so many followers.
+
+[7] _Op. cit._, p. 366.
+
+       *       *       *       *       *
+
+I can now turn to the second line of attack, that which boldly discards
+the origin of the terminology of relationship in social conditions, and
+seeks for its explanation in psychology. The line of argument I propose
+to follow is first to show that many details of classificatory systems
+have been directly determined by social factors. If that task can be
+accomplished, we shall have firm ground from which to take off in the
+attempt to refer the general characters of the classificatory and other
+systems of relationship to forms of social organisation. Any complete
+theory of a social institution has not only to account for its general
+characters, but also for its details, and I propose to begin with the
+details.
+
+I must first return to the history of the subject, and stay for a
+moment to ask why the line of argument I propose to follow was not
+adopted by Morgan and has been so largely disregarded by others.
+
+Whenever a new phenomenon is discovered in any part of the world, there
+is a natural tendency to seek for its parallels elsewhere. Morgan lived
+at a time when the unity of human culture was a topic which greatly
+excited ethnologists, and it is evident that one of his chief interests
+in the new discovery arose from the possibility it seemed to open of
+showing the uniformity of human culture. He hoped to demonstrate the
+uniformity of the classificatory system throughout the world, and he
+was content to observe certain broad varieties of the system and refer
+them to supposed stages in the history of human society. He paid but
+little attention to such varieties of the classificatory system as are
+illustrated in his own record of North American systems, and seems to
+have overlooked entirely certain features of the Indian and Oceanic
+systems he recorded, which might have enabled him to demonstrate the
+close relation between the terminology of relationship and social
+institutions. Morgan's neglect to attend to these differences must
+be ascribed in some measure to the ignorance of rude forms of social
+organisation which existed when he wrote, but the failure of others
+to recognise the dependence of the details of classificatory systems
+upon social institutions is rather to be ascribed to the absence
+of interest in the subject induced by their adherence to McLennan's
+primary error. Those who believe that the classificatory system is
+merely an unimportant code of mutual salutations are not likely to
+attend to relatively minute differences in the customs they despise.
+The credit of having been the first fully to recognise the social
+importance of these differences belongs to J. Kohler. In his book "Zur
+Urgeschichte der Ehe," which I have already mentioned, he studied
+minutely the details of many different systems, and showed that they
+could be explained by certain forms of marriage practised by those who
+use the terms. I propose now to deal with classificatory terminology
+from this point of view. My procedure will be first to show that
+the details which distinguish different forms of the classificatory
+system from one another have been directly determined by the social
+institutions of those who use the systems, and only when this has been
+established, shall I attempt to bring the more general characters
+of the classificatory and other systems into relation with social
+institutions.
+
+I am able to carry out this task more fully than has hitherto been
+possible because I have collected in Melanesia a number of systems of
+relationship which differ far more widely from one another than those
+recorded in Morgan's book or others which have been collected since.
+Some of the features which characterise these Melanesian systems will
+be wholly new to ethnologists, not having yet been recorded elsewhere,
+but I propose to begin with a long familiar mode of terminology which
+accompanies that widely distributed custom known as the cross-cousin
+marriage. In the more frequent form of this marriage a man marries the
+daughter either of his mother's brother or of his father's sister; more
+rarely his choice is limited to one of these relatives.
+
+Such a marriage will have certain definite consequences. Let us take a
+case in which a man marries the daughter of his mother's brother, as is
+represented in the following diagram:
+
+[Illustration: DIAGRAM 1[8]
+
+[8] In this and other diagrams capital letters are used to represent
+men and the smaller letters women.
+
+      +----------------------------+
+      |                            |
+  B = a                            A = b
+    |                                |
+    |                     +----------+----------+
+    |                     |          |          |
+    C =================== d          E          f
+]
+
+One consequence of the marriage between _C_ and _d_ will be that _A_,
+who before the marriage of _C_ was only his mother's brother, now
+becomes also his wife's father, while _b_, who before the marriage was
+the mother's brother's wife of _C_, now becomes his wife's mother.
+Reciprocally, _C_, who before his marriage had been the sister's
+son of _A_ and the husband's sister's son of _b_, now becomes their
+son-in-law. Further, _E_ and _f_, the other children of _A_ and _b_,
+who before the marriage had been only the cousins of _C_, now become
+his wife's brother and sister.
+
+Similarly, _a_, who before the marriage of _d_ was her father's sister,
+now becomes also her husband's mother, and _B_, her father's sister's
+husband, comes to stand in the relation of husband's father; if _C_
+should have any brothers and sisters, these cousins now become her
+brothers- and sisters-in-law.
+
+The combinations of relationship which follow from the marriage of a
+man with the daughter of his mother's brother thus differ for a man and
+a woman, but if, as is usual, a man may marry the daughter either of
+his mother's brother or of his father's sister, these combinations of
+relationship will hold good for both men and women.
+
+Another and more remote consequence of the cross-cousin marriage, if
+this become an established institution, is that the relationships
+of mother's brother and father's sister's husband will come to be
+combined in one and the same person, and that there will be a similar
+combination of the relationships of father's sister and mother's
+brother's wife. If the cross-cousin marriage be the habitual custom,
+_B_ and _b_ in Diagram 1 will be brother and sister; in consequence
+_A_ will be at once the mother's brother and the father's sister's
+husband of _C_, while _b_ will be both his father's sister and his
+mother's brother's wife. Since, however, the mother's brother is also
+the father-in-law, and the father's sister the mother-in-law, three
+different relationships will be combined in each case. Through the
+cross-cousin marriage the relationships of mother's brother, father's
+sister's husband and father-in-law will be combined in one and the same
+person, and the relationships of father's sister, mother's brother's
+wife and mother-in-law will be similarly combined.
+
+In many places where we know the cross-cousin marriage to be an
+established institution, we find just those common designations which I
+have just described. Thus, in the Mbau dialect of Fiji the word _vungo_
+is applied to the mother's brother, the husband of the father's sister
+and the father-in-law. The word _nganei_ is used for the father's
+sister, the mother's brother's wife and the mother-in-law. The term
+_tavale_ is used by a man for the son of the mother's brother or of
+the father's sister as well as for the wife's brother and the sister's
+husband. _Ndavola_ is used not only for the child of the mother's
+brother or father's sister when differing in sex from the speaker, but
+this word is also used by a man for his wife's sister and his brother's
+wife, and by a woman for her husband's brother and her sister's
+husband. Every one of these details of the Mbau system is the direct
+and inevitable consequence of the cross-cousin marriage, if it become
+an established and habitual practice.
+
+This Fijian system does not stand alone in Melanesia. In the southern
+islands of the New Hebrides, in Tanna, Eromanga, Anaiteum and
+Aniwa, the cross-cousin marriage is practised and their systems of
+relationship have features similar to those of Fiji. Thus, in Anaiteum
+the word _matak_ applies to the mother's brother, the father's sister's
+husband and the father-in-law, while the word _engak_ used for the
+cross-cousin is not only used for the wife's sister and the brother's
+wife, but also for the wife herself.
+
+Again, in the island of Guadalcanar in the Solomons the system of
+relationship is just such as would result from the cross-cousin
+marriage. One term, _nia_, is used for the mother's brother and the
+wife's father, and probably also for the father's sister's husband and
+the husband's father, though my stay in the island was not long enough
+to enable me to collect sufficient genealogical material to demonstrate
+these points completely. Similarly, _tarunga_ includes in its
+connotation the father's sister, the mother's brother's wife and the
+wife's mother, and probably also the husband's mother, while the word
+_iva_ is used for both cross-cousins and brothers- and sisters-in-law.
+Corresponding to this terminology there seemed to be no doubt that it
+was the custom for a man to marry the daughter of his mother's brother
+or his father's sister, though I was not able to demonstrate this form
+of marriage genealogically.
+
+These three regions, Fiji, the southern New Hebrides and Guadalcanar,
+are the only parts of Melanesia included in my survey where I found the
+practice of the cross-cousin marriage, and in all three regions the
+systems of relationship are just such as would follow from this form of
+marriage.
+
+Let us now turn to inquire how far it is possible to explain these
+features of Melanesian systems of relationship by psychological
+similarity. If it were not for the cross-cousin marriage, what
+can there be to give the mother's brother a greater psychological
+similarity to the father-in-law than the father's brother, or the
+father's sister a greater similarity to the mother-in-law than the
+mother's sister? Why should it be two special kinds of cousin who are
+classed with two special kinds of brother- and sister-in-law or with
+the husband or wife? Once granted the presence of the cross-cousin
+marriage, and there are psychological similarities certainly, though
+even here the matter is not quite straightforward from the point of
+view of the believer in their importance, for we have to do not merely
+with the similarity of two relatives, but with their identity, with
+the combination of two or more relationships in one and the same
+person. Even if we put this on one side, however, it remains to ask
+how it is possible to say that terms of relationship do not reflect
+sociology, if such psychological similarities are themselves the
+result of the cross-cousin marriage? What point is there in bringing
+in hypothetical psychological similarities which are only at the best
+intermediate links in the chain of causation connecting the terminology
+of relationship with antecedent social conditions?
+
+If you concede the causal relation between the characteristic features
+of a Fijian or Anaiteum or Guadalcanar system and the cross-cousin
+marriage, there can be no question that it is the cross-cousin marriage
+which is the antecedent and the features of the system of relationship
+the consequences. I do not suppose that, even in this subject, there
+will be found anyone to claim that the Fijians took to marrying their
+cross-cousins because such a marriage was suggested to them by the
+nature of their system of relationship. We have to do in this case,
+not merely with one or two features which might be the consequence of
+the cross-cousin marriage, but with a large and complicated meshwork
+of resemblances and differences in the nomenclature of relationship,
+each and every element of which follows directly from such a marriage,
+while no one of the systems I have considered possesses a single
+feature which is not compatible with social conditions arising out of
+this marriage. Apart from quantitative verification, I doubt whether it
+would be possible in the whole range of science to find a case where
+we can be more confident that one phenomenon has been conditioned by
+another. I feel almost guilty of wasting your time by going into it
+so fully, and should hardly have ventured to do so if this case of
+social causation had not been explicitly denied by one with so high a
+reputation as Professor Kroeber. I hope, however, that the argument
+will be useful as an example of the method I shall apply to other cases
+in which the evidence is less conclusive.
+
+The features of terminology which follow from the cross-cousin
+marriage were known to Morgan, being present in three of the systems
+he recorded from Southern India and in the Fijian system collected
+for him by Mr. Fison. The earliest reference[9] to the cross-cousin
+marriage which I have been able to discover is among the Gonds of
+Central India. This marriage was recorded in 1870, which, though
+earlier than the appearance of Morgan's book, was after it had been
+accepted for publication, so that I think we can be confident that
+Morgan was unacquainted with the form of marriage which would have
+explained the peculiar features of the Indian and Fijian systems. It is
+evident, however, that Morgan was so absorbed in his demonstration of
+the similarity of these systems to those of America that he paid but
+little, if any, attention to their peculiarities. He thus lost a great
+opportunity; if he had attended to these peculiarities and had seen
+their meaning, he might have predicted a form of marriage which would
+soon afterwards have been independently discovered. Such an example of
+successful prediction would have forced the social significance of the
+terminology of relationship upon the attention of students in such a
+way that we should have been spared much of the controversy which has
+so long obstructed progress in this branch of sociology. It must at the
+very least have acted as a stimulus to the collection of systems of
+relationship. It would hardly have been possible that now, more than
+forty years after the appearance of Morgan's book, we are still in
+complete ignorance of the terminology of relationship of many peoples
+about whom volumes have been written. It would seem impossible, for
+instance, that our knowledge of Indian systems of relationship could
+have been what it is to-day. India would have been the country in which
+the success of Morgan's prediction would first have shown itself, and
+such an event must have prevented the almost total neglect which the
+subject of relationship has suffered at the hands of students of Indian
+sociology.
+
+[9] Grant, _Gazetteer of Central Provinces_, Nagpur, 2nd ed., 1870, p.
+276.
+
+
+
+
+LECTURE II
+
+
+In my last lecture I began the demonstration of the dependence of the
+classificatory terminology of relationship upon social institutions by
+showing how a number of terms used in several parts of Melanesia have
+been determined by the cross-cousin marriage. I showed that in places
+where the cross-cousin marriage is practised there are not merely one
+or two, but large groups of, terms of relationship which are exactly
+such as would follow from this form of marriage. To-day I begin by
+considering other forms of Melanesian marriage which bring out almost
+as clearly and conclusively the dependence of the classificatory
+terminology upon social conditions.
+
+The systems of relationship of the Banks Islands possess certain very
+remarkable features which were first recorded by Dr. Codrington.[10]
+Put very shortly, it may be stated that cross-cousins stand to one
+another in the relation of parent and child, or, more exactly,
+cross-cousins apply to one another terms of relationship which are
+otherwise used between parents and children. A man applies to his
+mother's brother's children the term which he otherwise uses for
+his own children, and, conversely, a person applies to his father's
+sister's son a term he otherwise uses for his father. Thus, in the
+following diagram, _C_ will apply to _D_ and _e_ the terms which are in
+general use for a son and daughter, while _D_ and _e_ will apply to _C_
+the term they otherwise use for their father.
+
+[10] _The Melanesians_, p. 38.
+
+[Illustration: DIAGRAM 2.
+
+      +----------------------------+
+      |                            |
+  B = a                            A = b
+    |                                |
+    |                     +----------+----------+
+    |                     |                     |
+    C                     D                     e
+]
+
+In most forms of the classificatory system members of different
+generations are denoted in wholly different ways and belong to
+different classes,[11] but here we have a case in which persons of the
+same generation as the speaker are classed with those of an older or a
+younger generation.
+
+[11] I leave out of account here those cases in which members of
+different generations are denoted by a reciprocal term.
+
+I will first ask you to consider to what kind of psychological
+similarity such a practice can be due. What kind of psychological
+similarity can there be between one special kind of cousin and the
+father, and between another special kind of cousin and a son or
+daughter? If the puzzle as put in this form does not seem capable of a
+satisfactory answer, let us turn to see if the Banks Islanders practise
+any social custom to which this peculiar terminology can have been due.
+In the story of Ganviviris told to Dr. Codrington in these islands[12]
+an incident occurs in which a man hands over one of his wives to his
+sister's son, or, in other words, in which a man marries one of the
+wives of his mother's brother. Inquiries showed, not only that this
+form of marriage was once widely current in the islands, but that it
+still persists though in a modified form. The Christianity of the
+natives does not now permit a man to have superfluous wives whom he can
+pass on to his sister's sons, but it is still the orthodox, and indeed
+I was told the popular, custom to marry the widow of the mother's
+brother. It seemed that in the old days a man would take the widow of
+his mother's brother in addition to any wife or wives he might already
+have. Though this is no longer allowed, the leaning towards this form
+of marriage is so strong that after fifty years of external influence
+a young man still marries the widow of his mother's brother, sometimes
+in preference to a girl of his own age. Indeed, there was reason to
+believe that there was an obligation to do so, if the deceased husband
+had a nephew who was not yet married. The peculiar features of the
+terminology of relationship in these islands are exactly such as would
+follow from this form of marriage. If, in Diagram 2, _C_ marries _b_,
+the wife or widow of his mother's brother, and thereby comes to occupy
+the social position of his uncle _A_, the children of the uncle, _D_
+and _e_, will come to stand to him in the relation of children, while
+he, who had previously been the father's sister's son of _D_ and _e_,
+will now become their father. An exceptional form of the classificatory
+system, in which there is a departure from the usual rule limiting a
+term of relationship to members of the same generation, is found to
+be the natural consequence of a social regulation which enjoins the
+marriage of persons belonging to different generations.
+
+[12] _Op. cit._, p. 384.
+
+The next step in the process of demonstrating the social significance
+of the classificatory system of relationship will take us to the
+island of Pentecost in the northern New Hebrides. When I recorded
+the system of this island, I found it to have so bizarre and complex
+a character that I could hardly believe at first it could be other
+than the result of a ludicrous misunderstanding between myself and my
+seemingly intelligent and trustworthy informants. Nevertheless, the
+records obtained from two independent witnesses, and based on separate
+pedigrees, agreed so closely even in the details which seemed most
+improbable that I felt confident that the whole construction could not
+be so mad as it seemed. This confidence was strengthened by finding
+that some of its features were of the same order of peculiarity as
+others which I had already found in a set of Fijian systems I have
+yet to consider. There were certain features which brought relatives
+separated by two generations into one category; the mother's mother,
+for instance, received the same designation as the elder sister; the
+wife's mother the same as the daughter; the wife's brother the same as
+the daughter's son. The only conclusion I was then able to formulate
+was that these features were the result of some social institution
+resembling the matrimonial classes of Australia, which would have the
+effect of putting persons of alternate generations into one social
+category.
+
+This idea was supported by the system of relationship of the Dieri of
+Australia which possesses at least one feature similar to those of
+Pentecost, a fact I happened to remember at the time because Mr. N.
+W. Thomas[13] had used it as the basis of a _reductio ad absurdum_
+argument to show that terms of relationship do not express kinship.
+The interest of the Pentecost system seemed at first to lie in the
+possibility thus opened of bringing Melanesian into relation with
+Australian sociology, a hope which was the more promising in that the
+people of Pentecost and the Dieri resemble one another in the general
+character of their social organisation, each being organised on the
+dual basis with matrilineal descent. When in Pentecost, however, I was
+unable to get further than this, and the details of the system remained
+wholly inexplicable.
+
+[13] _Kinship Organisations and Group Marriage in Australia_,
+Cambridge, 1906, p. 123.
+
+The meaning of some of the peculiarities of the Pentecost system
+became clear when I reached the Banks Islands; they were of the same
+kind as those I have already considered as characteristic of these
+islands. When I had discovered the dependence of these features upon
+the marriage of a man with the wife of his mother's brother, it
+became evident that not only these, but certain other features of
+the Pentecost system, were capable of being accounted for by this
+kind of marriage. The peculiar features of the Pentecost system could
+be divided into two groups, and all the members of one group could
+be accounted for by the marriage with the mother's brother's wife.
+All these features had the character in common that persons of the
+generation immediately above or below that of the speaker were classed
+in nomenclature with relatives of the same generation.
+
+The other group consisted of terms in which persons two generations
+apart were classed with relatives of the same generation. Since the
+first group of correspondences had been explained by a marriage between
+persons one generation apart, it should have been obvious that the
+classing together of persons two generations apart might have been
+the result of marriage between persons two generations apart. The
+idea of a society in which marriages between those having the status
+of grandparents and grandchildren were habitual must have seemed
+so unlikely that, if it entered my mind at all, it must have been
+at once dismissed. The clue only came later from a man named John
+Pantutun, a native of the Banks Islands, who had been a teacher in
+Pentecost. In talking to me he often mentioned in a most instructive
+manner resemblances and differences between the customs of his own
+island and those he had observed in Pentecost. One day he let fall
+the observation with just such a manner as that in which we so often
+accuse neighbouring nations of ridiculous or disgusting practices, "O!
+Raga![14] That is the place where they marry their granddaughters." I
+saw at once that he had given me a possible explanation of the peculiar
+features of the system of the island. By that time I had forgotten
+the details of the Pentecost system, and it occurred to me that it
+would be interesting, not immediately to consult my note-books, but
+to endeavour to construct a system of relationship which would be the
+result of marriage with a granddaughter, and then to see how far my
+theoretical construction agreed with the terminology I had recorded.
+The first question which arose was with which kind of granddaughter
+the marriage had been practised, with the son's daughter or with the
+daughter's daughter, and this was a question readily answered by means
+of a consideration arising out of the nature of the social organisation
+of Pentecost.
+
+[14] This is the Mota name for Pentecost Island.
+
+The society of this island is organised on the dual basis with
+matrilineal descent in which a man must marry a woman of the opposite
+moiety. Diagram 3, in which _A_ and _a_ stand for men and women of
+one moiety, and _B_ and _b_ for those of the other moiety, shows that
+a marriage between a man and his son's daughter would be out of the
+question, for it would be a case of _A_ marrying _a_. It was evident
+that the marriage, the consequences of which I had to formulate, must
+have been one in which a man married his daughter's daughter.
+
+[Illustration: DIAGRAM 3.
+
+                   A = b
+                     |
+                     |
+       +-------------+-------------+
+       |                           |
+       B = a                   A = b
+         |                       |
+  +------+------+        +-------+-------+
+  |             |        |               |
+  A             a        B               b
+]
+
+It would take too long to go through the whole set of relationships,
+and I choose only a few examples which I illustrate by the following
+diagram:
+
+[Illustration: DIAGRAM 4.
+
+          A = b
+            |
+            |
+        D = c
+          |
+          |
+  +-------+-------+
+  |       |       |
+  e       F       f
+]
+
+This diagram shows that if _A_ marries _e_, _c_, who previous to the
+marriage had been only the daughter of _A_, now becomes also his wife's
+mother; and _D_, who had previously been his daughter's husband, now
+becomes his wife's father. Similarly, _F_, who before the new marriage
+was the daughter's son of _A_, now becomes the brother of his wife,
+while _f_, his daughter's daughter, becomes his wife's sister. Lastly,
+if we assume that it would be the elder daughters of the daughter who
+would be married by their grandfathers, _e_, who before the marriage
+had been the elder sister of _F_ and _f_, now comes through her
+marriage to occupy the position of their mother's mother.
+
+When, after making these deductions, I examined my record of the
+Pentecost terms, I found that its terminology corresponded exactly with
+those which had been deduced. The wife's mother and the daughter were
+both called _nitu_. The daughter's husband and the wife's father were
+both _bwaliga_. The daughter's children were called _mabi_, and this
+term was also used for the brother and sister of the wife. Lastly, the
+mother's mother was found to be classed with the elder sister, both
+being called _tuaga_.
+
+For the sake of simplicity of demonstration I have assumed that a man
+marries his own daughter's daughter, but through the classificatory
+principle all the features I have described would follow equally well
+if a man married the granddaughter of his brother, either in the narrow
+or the classificatory sense. There was one correspondence, according
+to which both the husband's brother and the mother's father were
+called _sibi_, which does not follow from the marriage with the own
+granddaughter, but would be the natural result of marriage with the
+daughter's daughter of the brother--_i.e._, with a marriage in which
+_e_ was married by _A's_ brother.
+
+I hope these examples will be sufficient to show how a number of
+features which might otherwise seem so absurd as to suggest a system of
+relationship gone mad become natural and intelligible, even obvious,
+if it were once the established practice of the people to marry the
+daughter's daughter of the brother.
+
+Such inquiries as I was able to make confirmed the conclusion that the
+Pentecost marriage was with the granddaughter of the brother rather
+than with the daughter of the daughter herself. After I had been put
+on the track of the explanation by John Pantutun I had the chance of
+talking to only one native of Pentecost, unfortunately not a very
+good informant. From his evidence it appeared that the marriage I had
+inferred from the system of relationship even now occurs in the island,
+but only with the granddaughter of the brother, and that marriage with
+the own granddaughter is forbidden. The evidence is not as complete as
+I should like, but it points to the actual existence in the island of a
+peculiar form of marriage from which the extraordinary features of its
+system of relationship directly follow.
+
+When I returned to England I found that this marriage was not unique,
+but had been recorded among the Dieri of Australia,[15] where, as I
+have already mentioned, it is associated with peculiar features of
+nomenclature resembling those of Pentecost.
+
+[15] Howitt, _Native Tribes of South-East Australia_, pp. 164, 177.
+
+I must again ask, how are you going to explain the features of the
+Pentecost system psychologically? What psychological resemblance is
+there between a grandmother and a sister, between a mother-in-law and a
+daughter, between a brother-in-law and a grandfather? Apart from some
+special form of social relationship, there can be no such resemblances.
+Further, if there were such psychological resemblances, why should we
+know of their influence on nomenclature only in Pentecost and among the
+Dieri? The features to be explained are definitely known to exist in
+only two systems of the world, and it is only among the peoples who use
+these two systems that we have any evidence of that extraordinary form
+of marriage of which they would be the natural consequence.
+
+       *       *       *       *       *
+
+I have now tried to show the dependence of special features of the
+classificatory system of relationship upon special social conditions.
+If I have succeeded in this I shall have gone far towards the
+accomplishment of one of the main purposes of these lectures. They
+have, however, another purpose, viz., to inquire how far we are
+justified in inferring the existence of a social institution of which
+we have no direct evidence when we find features of the nomenclature
+of relationship which would result from such an institution. I have
+now to enter upon this part of my subject, and I think it will be
+instructive to take you at once to a case in which I believe that an
+extraordinary form of marriage can be established as a feature of the
+past history of a people, although at the present moment any direct
+evidence for the existence of such a marriage is wholly lacking.
+
+When I was in the interior of Viti Levu, one of the Fijian islands,
+I discovered the existence of certain systems of relationship which
+differed fundamentally from the only Fijian systems previously known.
+Any features referable to the cross-cousin marriage were completely
+absent, but in their place were others, one of which I have already
+mentioned, which brought into one class relatives two generations
+apart. The father's father received the same designation as the
+elder brother, and the son's wife was called by the same term as the
+mother. As I have already said, my first conclusion was that these
+terms were the survivals of forms of social organisation resembling
+the matrimonial classes of Australia, but as soon as I had worked out
+the explanation of the Pentecost system, it became evident that the
+Fijian peculiarities would have to be explained on similar lines. At
+first I thought it probable that the difference between the Pentecost
+and Fijian systems was due to the difference in the mode of descent
+in the two places. For long I tried to work out schemes whereby a
+change from the matrilineal descent of Pentecost to the patrilineal
+condition of Fiji could have had as one of its consequences a change
+from a correspondence in nomenclature between the mother's mother
+and the elder sister to one in which the common nomenclature applied
+to the father's father and the elder brother. It is an interesting
+example of the strength of a preconceived opinion, and of some
+measure of the belief in the impossibility of customs not practised
+by ourselves, that for more than two years I failed to see an obvious
+alternative explanation, although I returned to the subject again and
+again. The clue came at last from the system of Buin, in the island
+of Bougainville, recorded by Dr. Thurnwald.[16] The nomenclature of
+this system agreed with that of inland Fiji in having one term for the
+father's father and the elder brother, but since the people of Buin
+still practice matrilineal descent, it was evident that I had been on
+a false track in supposing the correspondence to have been the result
+of a change in the mode of descent. Once turned into a fresh path by
+the necessity of showing how the correspondence could have arisen out
+of a matrilineal condition, it was not long before I saw how it might
+be accounted for in a very different way. I saw that the correspondence
+would be the natural result of a form of social organisation in which
+it was the practice to marry a grandmother, viz., the wife of the
+father's father. Not only did this form of marriage explain the second
+peculiar feature of the Fijian system, viz., the classing of the son's
+wife with the mother, but it would also account for several features of
+the Buin system which would otherwise be difficult to understand.
+
+[16] _Zeitsch. f. vergleich. Rechtswiss._, 1910, xxiii., 330.
+
+[Illustration: DIAGRAM 5.
+
+      A = b
+        |
+        |
+        C = d
+          |
+          |
+  +-------+-------+
+  |       |       |
+  E       F       f
+]
+
+If, as shown in Diagram 5, _E_ marries _b_, the wife or widow of his
+father's father, he, who had previously been the elder brother of _F_
+and _f_, now comes to occupy the position of their father's father,
+while _d_, the mother of _E_, will now come to stand to him in the
+relationship of son's wife.
+
+I need only mention here one of the features of the Buin system which
+can be accounted for by means of this marriage. The term _mamai_ is
+used, not only for the elder sister and for the elder brother's wife,
+but it is also applied to the father's mother; that is, the wife of
+the elder brother is designated by the same term as the wife of the
+father's father, exactly as must happen if _E_ marries _b_, the wife
+of his father's father. A number of extraordinary features from two
+Melanesian islands collected by two independent workers fit into a
+coherent scheme if they have been the result of a marriage in which
+a man gives one of his wives to his son's son during his life, or in
+which this woman is taken to wife by her husband's grandson when she
+becomes a widow. If the practice were ever sufficiently habitual to
+become the basis of the system of relationship, we can be confident
+that it is the former of these two alternatives with which we have to
+do.
+
+If you are still so under the domination of ideas derived from your own
+social surroundings that you cannot believe in such a marriage, I would
+remind you that there is definite evidence from the Banks Islands that
+men used to hand over wives to their sisters' sons. It is not taking us
+so much into the unknown as it might appear to suppose that they once
+also gave their wives to their sons' sons.
+
+I have taken this case somewhat out of its proper place in my argument
+because the evidence is so closely connected with that by means
+of which I have shown the relation between features of systems of
+relationship and peculiar forms of marriage in Melanesia. I have now to
+return to the more sober task of considering how far we are justified
+in inferring the former existence of marriage institutions when we
+find features of systems of relationship of which they would have been
+the natural consequence. It is evident that, whenever we find such a
+feature as common nomenclature for a grandmother and a sister or for a
+cross-cousin and a parent, it should suggest to us the possibility of
+such marriage regulations as those of Pentecost and the Banks Islands.
+But such common designations might have arisen in some other way,
+and in order to establish the existence of such forms of marriage in
+the past history of the people, we must have criteria to guide us
+when we are considering whether a given feature of the terminology of
+relationship is or is not a survival of a marriage institution.
+
+I will return to the cross-cousin marriage for my examples. The task
+before us is to inquire how far such features of relationship as exist
+in Fiji, Anaiteum or Guadalcanar, in conjunction with the cross-cousin
+marriage, will justify us in inferring the former existence of this
+form of marriage in places where it is not now practised.
+
+If there be found among any people all the characteristic features of
+a coastal Fijian or of an Anaiteum system, I think few will be found
+to doubt the former existence of the cross-cousin marriage. It would
+seem almost inconceivable that there should ever have existed any other
+conditions, whether social or psychological, which could have produced
+this special combination of peculiar uses of terms of relationship. It
+is when some only of these features are present that there will arise
+any serious doubt whether they are to be regarded as survivals of the
+former existence of the cross-cousin marriage.
+
+One consideration I must point out at once. Certain of the features
+which follow from the cross-cousin marriage may be the result of
+another marriage regulation. In some parts of the world there exists a
+custom of exchanging brothers and sisters, so that, when a man marries
+a woman, his sister marries his wife's brother. As the result of this
+custom the mother's brother and the father's sister's husband will come
+to be one and the same person, and the father's sister will become also
+the mother's brother's wife.
+
+This form of marriage exists among the western people of Torres
+Straits,[17] and is accompanied by features of the system of
+relationship which would follow from the practice. The mother's brother
+is classed with the father's sister's husband as _wad-wam_, but there
+is an alternative term for the father's sister's husband and there
+was no evidence that the mother's brother's wife was classed with
+the father's sister. It seemed possible that the classing together
+of the mother's brother and the father's sister's husband was not a
+constant feature of the system of relationship, but only occurred in
+cases where the custom of exchange had made it necessary. The case,
+however, is sufficient to show that two of the correspondences which
+follow from the cross-cousin marriage may be the result of another
+kind of marriage. If we accept the social causation of such features
+and find these correspondences alone, it would still remain an open
+question whether they were the results of the custom of exchange or
+of the marriage of cross-cousins. The custom of exchange, however, is
+wholly incapable of accounting for the use of a common term for the
+mother's brother and the father-in-law, for the father's sister and the
+mother-in-law, or for cross-cousins and brothers- or sisters-in-law.
+It is only when these correspondences are present that there will
+be any decisive reason for inferring the former existence of the
+cross-cousin marriage.
+
+[17] _Rep. Cambridge Expedition to Torres Straits_, vol. v., pp. 135
+and 241.
+
+The first conclusion, then, is that some of the features found in
+association with the cross-cousin marriage are of greater value than
+others in enabling us to infer the former existence of the cross-cousin
+marriage where it no longer exists. Next, the probability that such
+features as I am considering are due to the former presence of the
+cross-cousin marriage will be greatly heightened if this form of
+marriage should exist among people with allied cultures. An instance
+from Melanesia will bring out this point clearly.
+
+In the island of Florida in the Solomons it is clear that the
+cross-cousin marriage is not now the custom, and I could discover
+no tradition of its existence in the past. One feature, however, of
+the system of relationship is just such as would follow from the
+cross-cousin marriage. Both the wife's mother and the wife of the
+mother's brother are called _vungo_.
+
+Florida is not only near Guadalcanar where the cross-cousin marriage
+is practised, (the two islands are within sight of one another), but
+their cultures are very closely related. In such a case the probability
+that the single feature of the Florida system which follows from the
+cross-cousin marriage has actually had that form of marriage as its
+antecedent becomes very great, and this conclusion becomes still more
+probable when we find that in a third island, Ysabel, closely allied
+in culture both to Florida and Guadalcanar, there is a clear tradition
+of the former practice of the cross-cousin marriage although it is now
+only an occasional event.
+
+Again, in one district of San Cristoval in the Solomons the term
+_fongo_ is used both for the father-in-law and the father's sister's
+husband, and _kafongo_ similarly denotes both the mother-in-law and
+the mother's brother's wife. This island differs more widely from
+Guadalcanar in culture than Florida or Ysabel, but the evidence for
+the former existence of the marriage in these islands gives us more
+confidence in ascribing the common designations of San Cristoval to the
+cross-cousin marriage than would have been the case if these common
+designations had been the only examples of such possible survivals in
+the Solomons. Speaking in more general terms, one may say that the
+probability that the common nomenclature for two relatives is the
+survival of a form of marriage becomes the greater, the more similar is
+the general culture in which the supposed survival is found to that of
+a people who practise this form of marriage. The case will be greatly
+strengthened if there should be intermediate links between the supposed
+survival and the still living institution.
+
+When we find a feature such as that of the Florida system among a
+people none of whose allies in culture practise the cross-cousin
+marriage, the matter must be far more doubtful. In the present state
+of our knowledge we are only justified in making such a feature the
+basis of a working hypothesis to stimulate research and encourage us
+to look for other evidence in the neighbourhood of the place where the
+feature has been found. Our knowledge of the social institutions of the
+world is not yet so complete that we can afford to neglect any clue
+which may guide our steps.
+
+I propose briefly to consider two regions, South India and North
+America, to show how they differ from this point of view.
+
+The terms of relationship used in three[18] of the chief languages
+spoken by the people of South India are exactly such as would follow
+from the cross-cousin marriage. In Tamil[19] the mother's brother, the
+father's sister's husband, and the father of both husband and wife are
+all called _mama_, and this term is also used for these relatives in
+Telegu. In Canarese the mother's brother and the father-in-law are both
+called _mava_, but the father's sister's husband fails to fall into
+line and is classed with the father's brother.
+
+[18] I know of no complete record of the terminology of the fourth
+chief language of South India, Malayalam.
+
+[19] I take my data from the lists compiled for Morgan by the Rev. E.
+C. Scudder and the Rev. B. Rice, Morgan's _Systems ..._, pp. 537-566.
+These lists are not complete, giving in some cases only the terms used
+in address. They agree in general with some lists compiled during the
+recent Indian Census which Mr. E. A. Gait has kindly sent to me.
+
+Similarly, the father's sister, the mother's brother's wife and the
+mother of both wife and husband are called _atta_ in Telegu and _atte_
+in Canarese, Tamil here spoiling the harmony by having one term,
+_attai_, for the father's sister and another, _mami_, for the mother's
+brother's wife and the mother-in-law. Since, however, the Tamil term
+for the father's sister is only another form of the Telegu and Canarese
+words for the combined relationships, the exception only serves to
+strengthen the agreement with the condition which would follow from the
+cross-cousin marriage.
+
+The South Indian terms for cross-cousin and brother- and sister-in-law
+are complicated by the presence of distinctions dependent on the sex
+and relative age of those who use them, but these complications do
+not disguise how definitely the terminology would follow from the
+cross-cousin marriage. Thus, to take only two examples: a Tamil man
+applies the term _maittuni_ to the daughters of his mother's brother
+and of his father's sister as well as to his brother's wife and his
+wife's sister, and a Canarese woman uses one term for the sons of her
+mother's brother and of her father's sister, for her husband's brother
+and her sister's husband.
+
+So far as we know, the cross-cousin marriage is not now practised by
+the vast majority of those who use these terms of relationship. If the
+terminology has been the result of the cross-cousin marriage, it is
+only a survival of an ancient social condition in which this form of
+marriage was habitual. That it is such a survival, however, becomes
+certain when we find the cross-cousin marriage still persisting in
+many parts of South India, and that among one such people at least,
+the Todas,[20] this form of marriage is associated with a system of
+relationship agreeing both in its structure and linguistic character
+with that of the Tamils. I have elsewhere[21] brought together the
+evidence for the former prevalence of this form of marriage in India,
+but even if there were no evidence, the terminology of relationship is
+so exactly such as would follow from the cross-cousin marriage that we
+can be certain that this form of marriage was once the habitual custom
+of the people of South India.
+
+[20] Rivers, _The Todas_, 1906, pp. 487, 512.
+
+[21] _Journal Royal Asiatic Society_, 1907, p. 611.
+
+While South India thus provides a good example of a case in which we
+can confidently infer the former existence of the cross-cousin marriage
+from the terminology of relationship, the evidence from North America
+is of a kind which gives to such an inference only a certain degree of
+probability. In this case it is necessary to suspend judgment and await
+further evidence before coming to a positive conclusion.
+
+I will begin with a very doubtful feature which comes from an
+Athapascan tribe, the Red Knives[22] (probably that now called Yellow
+Knife). These people use a common term, _set-so_, for the father's
+sister, the mother's brother's wife, the wife's mother and the
+husband's mother, a usage which would be the necessary result of
+the cross-cousin marriage. Against this, however, is to be put the
+fact that there are three different terms for the corresponding male
+relatives, the two kinds of father-in-law being called _seth-a_,
+the mother's brother _ser-a_, and the father's sister's husband
+_sel-the-ne_. Further, the term _set-so_, the common use of which for
+the aunt and mother-in-law seems to indicate the cross-cousin marriage,
+is also applied by a man to his brother's wife and his wife's sister,
+features which cannot possibly be the result of this form of marriage.
+These features show, either that the terminology has arisen in some
+other way, or that there has been some additional social factor in
+operation which has greatly modified a nomenclature derived from the
+cross-cousin marriage.
+
+[22] See Morgan, _Systems ..._, Table II.
+
+A stronger case is presented by the terminology of three branches
+of the Cree tribe, also recorded by Morgan. In all three systems,
+one term, _ne-sis_ or _nee-sis_, is used for the mother's brother,
+the father's sister's husband, the wife's father and the husband's
+father; while the term _nis-si-goos_ applies to the father's sister,
+the mother's brother's wife and the two kinds of mother-in-law. These
+usages are exactly such as would follow from the cross-cousin marriage.
+The terms for the sister's son of a man and the brother's son of a
+woman, however, differ from those used for the son-in-law, and there
+is also no correspondence between the terms for cross-cousin and any
+kind of brother- or sister-in-law. The case points more definitely to
+the cross-cousin marriage than in the case of the Red Knives, but yet
+lacks the completeness which would allow us to make the inference with
+confidence.
+
+The Assiniboin have a common term, _me-toh-we_, used for the father's
+sister, the mother's brother's wife and the two kinds of mother-in-law,
+and also a common term, _me-nake-she_, for the mother's brother and
+the father's sister's husband, but the latter differs from the word,
+_me-to-ga-she_, used for the father of husband or wife. The case here
+is decidedly stronger than among the Red Knives, but is less complete
+than among the Crees.
+
+Among a number of branches of the Dakotas the evidence is of a
+different kind, being derived from similar nomenclature for the
+cross-cousin and certain kinds of brother- and sister-in-law.
+Morgan[23] has recorded eight systems, all of which show the features
+in question, but I will consider here only that of the Isauntie or
+Santee Dakotas, which was collected for him by the Rev. S. R. Riggs.
+Riggs[24] and Dorsey[25] have given independent accounts of this system
+which are far less complete than that given by Morgan, but agree with
+it in all essentials.
+
+[23] _Loc. cit._
+
+[24] _Dakota Grammar, Texts, and Ethnography: Contributions to North
+American Ethnology_, Washington, vol. ix.
+
+[25] Preface to above.
+
+In this system a man calls the son of his mother's brother or of
+his father's sister _ta-hang-she_ or _tang-hang-she_, while his
+wife's brother and his sister's husband are _ta-hang_ or _tang-hang_.
+Similarly, a woman calls her cross-cousin _she-chay-she_, while her
+husband's brother and her sister's husband are called _she-chay_. The
+terms for brothers-in-law are thus the same as those for cross-cousins
+with the omission of the suffix _she_. One of these resemblances, that
+when a woman is speaking, has been cited by Professor Kroeber[26] as an
+example of the psychological causation of such features of relationship
+as I am considering in these lectures. He rejects its dependence on the
+cross-cousin marriage and refers the resemblance to the psychological
+similarity between a woman's cousin and her brother-in-law in that both
+are collateral relatives alike in sex, of the same generation as the
+speaker, but different from her in sex.
+
+[26] _Op. cit._, p. 82.
+
+As we have seen, however, the Dakota correspondence is not an isolated
+occurrence, but fits in with a number of other features of the systems
+of cognate peoples to form a body of evidence pointing to the former
+prevalence of the cross-cousin marriage.
+
+There is also indirect evidence leading in the same direction. In
+Melanesia there is reason to believe that the cross-cousin marriage
+stands in a definite relation to another form of marriage, that with
+the wife of the mother's brother. If there should be evidence for the
+former existence of this marriage in North America, it would increase
+the probability in favour of the cross-cousin marriage.
+
+Among a number of peoples, some of whom form part of the Sioux,
+including the Minnitarees, Crows, Choctas, Creeks, Cherokees and
+Pawnees, cross-cousins are classed with parents and children exactly as
+in the Banks Islands, and exactly as in those islands, it is the son of
+the father's sister who is classed with the father, and the children of
+the mother's brother who are classed with sons or daughters. Further,
+among the Pawnees the wife of the mother's brother is classed with
+the wife, a feature also associated with the peculiar nomenclature
+for cross-cousins in the Banks Islands. The agreement is so close as
+to make it highly probable that the American features of relationship
+have been derived from a social institution of the same kind as that
+to which the Melanesian features are due, and that it was once the
+custom of these American peoples to marry the wife of the mother's
+brother. Here, as in the case of the cross-cousin marriage itself,
+the case rests entirely upon the terminology of relationship, but we
+cannot ignore the association in neighbouring parts of North America of
+features of relationship which would be the natural consequence of two
+forms of marriage which are known to be associated together elsewhere.
+
+I am indebted to Miss Freire-Marreco for the information that the Tewa
+of Hano, a Pueblo tribe, call the father's sister's son _tada_, a term
+otherwise used for the father, thus suggesting that they also may once
+have practised marriage with the wife of the mother's brother. The
+use of this term, however, is only one example of a practice whereby
+all the males of the father's clan are called _tada_, irrespective of
+age and generation. The common nomenclature for the father and the
+father's sister's son among the Tewa thus differs in character from
+the apparently similar nomenclature of the Banks Islands and cannot
+have been determined directly, perhaps not even remotely, by marriage
+with the wife of the mother's brother. This raises the question whether
+the nomenclature of the Sioux has not arisen out of a practice similar
+to that of the Tewa. The terms for other relatives recorded by Morgan
+show some evidence of the widely generalised use of the Tewa, but such
+a use cannot account for the classing of the wife of the mother's
+brother with the wife which occurs among the Pawnees. Nevertheless, the
+Tewa practice should keep us alive to the possibility that the Sioux
+nomenclature may depend on some social condition different from that
+which has been effective in the Banks Islands in spite of the close
+resemblance between the two.
+
+The case for the former existence of the cross-cousin marriage will be
+much strengthened if this form of marriage should occur elsewhere in
+North America. So far as I am aware, the only people among whom it has
+been recorded are the Haidahs of Queen Charlotte Island.[27] It is
+a far cry from this outpost of North American culture to Dakota, but
+it may be noted that it is among the Crees who formerly lived in the
+intermediate region of Manitoba and Assiniboia that the traces of the
+cross-cousin marriage are most definite. This mode of distribution of
+the peoples whose terminology of relationship bears evidence of the
+cross-cousin marriage suggests that other intermediate links may yet
+be found. Though the existing evidence is inconclusive, it should be
+sufficient to stimulate a search for other evidence which may make it
+possible to decide whether or no the cross-cousin marriage was once a
+widespread practice in North America.
+
+[27] Swanton, _Contributions to the Ethnology of the Haidahs, Jesup
+North Pacific Expedition_, 1905, vol. v., pt. i., p. 62. Miss
+Freire-Marreco tells me that the cross-cousin marriage occurs among
+some of the Hopi Indians.
+
+I can only consider one other kind of marriage here. The discovery of
+so remarkable a union as that with the daughter's daughter in Pentecost
+and the evidence pointing to a still more remarkable marriage between
+those having the status of grandparent and grandchild in Fiji and
+Buin have naturally led me to look for similar evidence elsewhere
+in Melanesia. Though there is nothing conclusive, conditions are to
+be found here and there which suggest the former existence of such
+marriages.
+
+When I was in the Solomons I met a native of the Trobriand Islands,
+who told me that among his people the term _tabu_ was applied both
+to grandparents and to the father's sister's child. I went into the
+whole subject as fully as was possible with only one witness, but in
+spite of his obvious intelligence and good faith, I remained doubtful
+whether the information was correct. The feature in question, however,
+occurs in the list of Trobriand terms drawn up for Dr. Seligmann[28]
+by Mr. Bellamy, and with this double warrant it must be accepted. It
+is a feature which would follow from marriage with the daughter's
+daughter, for by this marriage one who was previously a father's
+sister's daughter becomes the wife of a grandfather and thereby attains
+the status of a grandparent. The feature exists alone, and, further,
+it is combined with other applications of the term which deprive it
+of some of its significance; nevertheless, the fact that a peculiar
+and exceptional feature of a Melanesian system of relationship is such
+as would follow naturally from a form of marriage which is practised
+in another part of Melanesia cannot be passed over. Standing alone,
+it would be wholly insufficient to justify the conclusion that the
+marriage with the daughter's daughter was ever prevalent among the
+Massim, but in place of expressing a dogmatic denial, let us look for
+other features of Massim sociology which may have been the results of
+such a marriage.
+
+[28] See _The Melanesians of British New Guinea_, Cambridge, 1910, p.
+707.
+
+In Wagawaga[29] there is a peculiar term, _warihi_, which is used
+by men for other men of their own generation and social group, but
+the term is also applied by an old man or woman to one of a younger
+generation. Again, in Tubetube[30] the term for a husband, _taubara_,
+is also a term for an old man, and the term for the wife is also
+applied to an old woman. These usages may be nothing more than
+indications of respect for a husband or wife, or of some mechanism
+which brought those differing widely in age into one social category,
+but with the clue provided by the Trobriand term of relationship it
+becomes possible, though even now only possible, that the Wagawaga and
+Tubetube customs may have arisen out of a social condition in which
+it was customary to have great disparity of age between husbands and
+wives, and social relations between old and young following from such
+disparity in the age of consorts.
+
+[29] _Ibid._, pp. 482 and 436.
+
+[30] _The Melanesians of British New Guinea_, Cambridge, 1910, p. 482.
+
+In Tubetube there is yet another piece of evidence. Mr. Field[31]
+has recorded the existence in this island of three named categories
+of persons, two of which comprise relatives with whom marriage is
+prohibited, while the third groups together those with whom marriage
+is allowed. The grandparents and grandchildren are included in one of
+the two prohibited classes, so that we can be confident that marriage
+between these relatives does not now occur. The point to which I call
+your attention is that the class of relative with whom marriage is
+allowed is called _kasoriegogoli_. _Li_ is the third person pronominal
+suffix, and we do not know the meaning of _kasorie_, but _goga_ is
+the term used in Wagawaga and Wedau for the grandparents, its place
+being taken by the usual Melanesian term _tubu_ in Tubetube. The term
+_kasoriegogoli_ applied to marriageable relatives thus contains as one
+of its constituent elements a word which is probably the ancient term
+for grandparent in the island, since it is still used in this sense in
+the closely allied societies of the mainland.
+
+[31] Rep. Austral. Ass., 1900, viii., 301.
+
+We have thus a number of independent facts among the Massim, all of
+which would be the natural outcome of marriage between persons of
+alternate generations. To no one of them standing alone could much
+importance be attached, but taken in conjunction, they ought at least
+to suggest the possibility of such a marriage, a possibility which
+becomes the more probable when we consider that the Massim show clear
+evidence of the dual organisation of society with matrilineal descent
+which is associated with the granddaughter marriage of Pentecost and
+the Dieri of Australia. It adds to the weight of the evidence that
+indications of this peculiar form of marriage should be found among a
+people whose social organisation so closely resembles that in which the
+marriages between persons of alternate generations elsewhere occur.
+
+I have no time for other examples. I hope to have shown that there are
+cases in which it is possible to infer with certainty the ancient
+existence of forms of marriage from the survival of their results in
+the terminology of relationship. In other cases, differences of culture
+or the absence of intermediate links make it unjustifiable to infer
+the ancient existence of the forms of marriage from which features of
+terminology might be derived. Other cases lie between the two, the
+confidence with which a form of marriage can be inferred varying with
+the degree of likeness of culture, the distance in space, and the
+presence or absence of other features of culture which may be related
+to the form of marriage in question. Even in the cases, however, where
+the inference is most doubtful, we have no right dogmatically to deny
+the origin of the terminology of relationship in social conditions, but
+should keep each example before an open mind, to guide and stimulate
+inquiry in a region where ethnologists have till now only scratched the
+surface covering a rich mine of knowledge.
+
+
+
+
+LECTURE III
+
+
+Thus far in these lectures I have been content to demonstrate the
+dependence of the terminology of relationship upon forms of marriage.
+In spending so much time upon this aspect of my subject I fear that
+I may have been helping to strengthen a very general misconception,
+for it is frequently supposed that the sole aim of those who think
+as I do is to explain systems of relationship by their origin in
+forms of marriage. Marriage is only one of the social institutions
+which have moulded the terminology of relationship. It is, however,
+so fundamental a social institution that it is difficult to get far
+away from it in any argument which deals with social organisation. In
+now passing to other examples of the dependence of the terminology of
+relationship upon social conditions, I begin with one in which features
+of this terminology have come about, not as the result of forms of
+marriage, but of an attitude towards social regulations connected with
+marriage. The instance I have now to consider is closely allied to one
+which Professor Kroeber has used as his pattern of the psychological
+causation of the terminology of relationship.
+
+Both in Polynesia and Melanesia it is not infrequent for the
+father-in-law to be classed with the father, the mother-in-law with
+the mother, the brother-in-law with the brother, and the sister-in-law
+with the sister. The Oceanic terminology of relationship has two
+features which enable us to study the exact nature of this process in
+more detail than is possible with our own system. Oceanic languages
+often distinguish carefully between different kinds of brother- and
+sister-in-law, and, if it be found that it is only certain kinds of
+brother- or sister-in-law who are classed with the brother or sister,
+we may thereby obtain a clue to the nature of the process whereby
+the classing has come about. Secondly, Oceanic terminology usually
+distinguishes relationships between men or between women from those
+between persons of different sex, and there is a feature of the
+terminology employed when brothers- or sisters-in-law are classed with
+brothers or sisters in Oceania which throws much light on the process
+whereby this common nomenclature has come into use.
+
+The first point to be noticed in the Oceanic nomenclature of
+relationship is that not all brothers- and sisters-in-law are classed
+with brothers and sisters, but only those of different sex. Thus,
+in Merlav, in the Banks Islands, it is only the wife's sister and
+a man's brother's wife who are classed with the sister, and the
+husband's brother and a woman's sister's husband who are classed with
+the brother, while there are special terms for other categories
+of relative whom we include under the designations brother- and
+sister-in-law. Similar conditions are general throughout Melanesia. If,
+as Professor Kroeber has supposed, the classing of the brother-in-law
+with the brother be due to the psychological similarity of the
+relationships, we ought to be able to discover why this similarity
+should be greater between persons of different sex than between persons
+of the same sex.
+
+If now we study our case from the Banks Islands more closely and
+compare the social conditions in Merlav with those of other islands
+of the group, we find definite evidence, which it will not now be
+possible to consider in detail, showing that sexual relations were
+formerly allowed between a man and his wife's sisters and his brothers'
+wives, and that there is a definite association between the classing
+of these relatives with the sister and the cessation of such sexual
+relations. If such people as the Melanesians wish to emphasise in the
+strongest manner possible the impropriety of sexual relations between
+a man and the sisters of his wife, there is no way in which they can
+do it more effectually than by classing these relatives with a sister.
+To a Melanesian, as to other people of rude culture, the use of a
+term otherwise applied to a sister carries with it such deeply-seated
+associations as to put sexual relations absolutely out of the question.
+There is a large body of evidence from southern Melanesia which
+suggests strongly, if not conclusively, that the common nomenclature
+I am now considering has arisen out of the social need for emphasising
+the impropriety of relations which were once habitual among the people.
+
+The second feature of Melanesian terminology which I have mentioned
+helps us to understand how the common nomenclature has come about.
+In most of the Melanesian cases in which a wife's sister is denoted
+by a term otherwise used for a sister, or a husband's brother by a
+term otherwise used for a brother, the term employed is one which is
+normally used between those of the same sex. Thus, a man does not apply
+to his wife's sister the term which he himself uses for his sister, but
+one which would be used by a woman of her sister. In other words, a man
+uses for his wife's sister the term which is used for this relative
+by his wife. This shows us how the common nomenclature may have come
+into use. It suggests that as sexual relations with the wife's sister
+became no longer orthodox, a man came to apply to this woman the word
+with which he was already familiar as a term for this relative from
+the mouth of his wife. The special feature of Melanesian nomenclature
+according to which terms of relationship vary with the sex of the
+speaker here helps us to understand how the common nomenclature arose.
+The process is one in which psychological factors evidently play an
+important part, but these psychological factors are themselves the
+outcome of a social process, viz., the change from a condition of
+sexual communism to one in which sexual relations are restricted to
+the partners of a marriage. Such psychological factors as come into
+action are only intermediate links in a chain of causation in which the
+two ends are definitely social processes or events, or, perhaps more
+correctly, psychological concomitants of intermediate links which are
+themselves social events. We should be shutting our eyes to obvious
+features of these Melanesian customs if we refused to recognise that
+the terminology of relationship here "reflects" sociology.
+
+This leads me to question for a moment whether it may not be the same
+with that custom of our own society which Professor Kroeber has taken
+as his example of the psychological causation of the terminology
+of relationship. Is it as certain as Professor Kroeber supposes
+that the classing of the brother-in-law with the brother, or of the
+sister-in-law with the sister, among ourselves does not reflect
+sociology? We know that there are social factors at work among us which
+give to these relationships, and especially to that of wife's sister,
+a very great importance. If instead of stating dogmatically that this
+feature of our own terminology is due to the psychological similarity
+of the relationships, Professor Kroeber's mind had been open even to
+the possibility of the working of social causes, I think he might
+have been led to inquire more closely into the distribution and exact
+character of the practice in question. He might have been led to see
+that we have here a problem for exact inquiry. Such a custom among
+ourselves must certainly own a cause different from that to which I
+have ascribed the Melanesian practice, but is it certain that there is
+no social practice among ourselves which would lead to the classing
+of the wife's sister with the sister and the sister's husband of a
+woman with the brother? I will only point to the practice of marrying
+the deceased wife's sister, and content myself with the remark that I
+should be surprised if there were any general tendency to class these
+relatives together by a people among whom this form of marriage is the
+orthodox and habitual custom.
+
+Till now I have been dealing with relatively small variations of the
+classificatory system. The varieties I have so far considered are such
+as would arise out of a common system if in one place there came into
+vogue the cross-cousin marriage, in another place marriage with the
+wife of the mother's brother, in another that with the granddaughter
+of the brother or with the wife of the grandfather, and in yet
+other places combinations of these forms of marriage. I have now to
+consider whether it is possible to refer the main varieties of the
+classificatory system to social conditions; as an example with which
+to begin, I choose one which is so definite that it attracted the
+attention of Morgan, viz., the variety of the classificatory system
+which Morgan called "Malayan". It is now generally recognised that
+this term was badly chosen. The variety so called was known to Morgan
+through the terminology of the Hawaiian Islands, and as the system
+of these islands was not only the first to be recorded, but is also
+that of which even now we have the most complete record, I propose
+to use it as the pattern and to speak of the Hawaiian system where
+Morgan spoke of the Malayan. If now we compare the Hawaiian system
+with the forms of the classificatory system found in other parts of
+Oceania, in Australia, India, Africa or America, we find that it is
+characterised by its extreme simplicity and by the fewness of its
+terms. Distinctions such as those between the father's brother and the
+mother's brother, between the father's sister and the mother's sister,
+and between the children of brothers or of sisters and the children
+of brother and sister, distinctions which are so generally present in
+the more usual forms of the classificatory system, are here completely
+absent. The problem before us is to discover whether the absence of
+these distinctions can be referred to any social factors. If not, we
+may be driven to suppose that there is something in the structure of
+the Polynesian mind which leads the Hawaiian and the Maori to see
+similarities where most other peoples of rude culture see differences.
+
+The first point to be noted is that in Oceania the distinction between
+the Hawaiian and the more usual forms of the classificatory system
+does not correspond with the distinction between the Polynesian and
+Melanesian peoples. Systems are to be found in Melanesia, as in the
+western Solomons, which closely resemble that of Hawaii, while there
+are Polynesian systems, such as those of Tonga and Tikopia, which are
+so like those of Melanesia that, if they had occurred there, they would
+have attracted no special attention. The difference between the two
+kinds of system is not to be correlated with any difference of race.
+
+Next, if we take Melanesian and Polynesian systems as a whole, we find
+that they do not fall into two sharply marked-off groups, but that
+there are any number of intermediate gradations between the two. It
+would be possible to arrange the classificatory systems of Oceania in a
+series in which it would not be possible to draw the line at any point
+between the different varieties of system which the two ends of the
+series seem to represent. The question arises whether it is possible
+to find any other series of transitions in Oceania which runs parallel
+with the series connecting the two varieties of system of relationship.
+There is no doubt but that this question can be answered in the
+affirmative.
+
+Speaking broadly, there are two main varieties of social organisation
+in Oceania, with an infinite number of intermediate conditions. In one
+variety marriage is regulated by some kind of clan-exogamy, including
+under the term "clan" the moieties of a dual organisation; in the other
+variety marriage is regulated by kinship or genealogical relationship.
+We know of no part of Melanesia where marriage is regulated solely by
+clan-exogamy, but it is possible to arrange Melanesian and Polynesian
+societies in a series according to the different degrees in which the
+principles of genealogical relationship is the determining factor in
+the regulation of marriage. At one end of the series we should have
+places like the Banks Islands, the northern New Hebrides and the Santa
+Cruz Islands, where the clan-organisation is so obviously important
+that it was the only mechanism for the regulation of marriage which was
+recognised even by so skilful an observer as Dr. Codrington. At the
+other end of the series we have places such as the Hawaiian Islands
+and Eddystone Island in the western Solomons, where only the barest
+traces of a clan-organisation are to be found and where marriage is
+regulated solely by genealogical relationship. Between the two are
+numerous intermediate cases, and the series so formed runs so closely
+parallel to that representing the transitions between different forms
+of the classificatory system that it seems out of the question but
+that there should be a relation between the two. Of all the places
+where I have myself worked, the two in which I failed to find any trace
+of the regulation of marriage by means of a clan-organisation were
+the Hawaiian Islands and Eddystone Island, and the systems of both
+places were lacking in just those distinctions the absence of which
+characterised the Malayan system of Morgan. Only in one point did the
+Eddystone system differ from the Hawaiian. Though the mother's brother
+was classed in nomenclature with the father, there was a term for the
+sister's son, but it was so little used that in a superficial survey it
+would have escaped notice. Its use was so exceptional that many of the
+islanders were doubtful about its proper meaning. In other parts of the
+Solomons where the clan-organisation persists, but where the regulation
+of marriage by genealogical relationship is equally, if not more,
+important, the systems of relationship show intermediate characters.
+Thus, in the island of Florida the mother's brother was distinguished
+from the father and there was a term by means of which to distinguish
+cross-cousins from other kinds of cousin, but the father's sister was
+classed with the mother, and it was habitual to ignore the proper term
+for cross-cousins and to class them in nomenclature with brothers and
+sisters and with cousins of other kinds, as in the Hawaiian system.
+One influential man even applied the term for father to the mother's
+brother; it was evident that a change is even now in progress which
+would have to go very little farther to make the Florida system
+indistinguishable in structure from that of Hawaii.
+
+Among the western Papuo-Melanesians of New Guinea, again, the systems
+of relationship come very near to the Hawaiian type, and with this
+character there is associated a very high degree of importance of the
+regulation of marriage by genealogical relationship and a vagueness of
+clan-organisation. We have here so close a parallelism between two
+series of social phenomena as to supply as good an example as could be
+wished of the application of the method of concomitant variations in
+the domain of sociology.
+
+The nature of these changes and their relation to the general cultures
+of the peoples who use the different forms of terminology show that the
+transitions are to be associated with a progressive change which has
+taken place in Oceania. In this part of the world the classificatory
+system has been the seat of a process of simplification starting
+from the almost incredible complexity of Pentecost and reaching the
+simplicity of such systems as those of Eddystone or Mekeo. This process
+has gone hand in hand with one in which the regulation of marriage by
+some kind of clan-exogamy has gradually been replaced by a mechanism
+based on relationship as traced by means of pedigrees.
+
+If this conclusion be accepted, it will follow that the more widely
+distributed varieties of the classificatory system of relationship
+are associated with a social structure which has the exogamous social
+group as its essential unit. This position has only to be stated for
+it to become apparent how all the main features of the classificatory
+system are such as would follow directly from such a social structure.
+Wherever the classificatory system is found in association with a
+system of exogamous social groups, the terms of relationship do
+not apply merely to relatives with whom it is possible to trace
+genealogical relationship, but to all the members of a clan of a given
+generation, even if no such relationship with them can be traced. Thus,
+a man will not only apply the term "father" to all the brothers of his
+father, to all the sons' sons of his father's father, and to all the
+sons' sons' sons of his father's father's father, to all the husbands
+of his mother's sisters and of his mother's mother's granddaughters,
+etc., but he will also apply the term to all the members of his
+father's clan of the same generation as his father and to all the
+husbands of the women of the mother's clan of the same generation as
+the mother, even when it is quite impossible to show any genealogical
+relationship with them. All these and the other main features of the
+classificatory system become at once natural and intelligible if this
+system had its origin in a social structure in which exogamous social
+groups, such as the clan or moiety, were even more completely and
+essentially the social units than we know them to be to-day among the
+peoples whose social systems have been carefully studied. If you are
+dissatisfied with the word "classificatory" as a term for the system of
+relationship which is found in America, Africa, India, Australia and
+Oceania, you would be perfectly safe in calling it the "clan" system,
+and in inferring the ancient presence of a social structure based on
+the exogamous clan even if this structure were no longer present.
+
+Not only is the general character of the classificatory system exactly
+such as would be the consequence of its origin in a social structure
+founded on the exogamous social group, but many details of these
+systems point in the same direction. Thus, the rigorous distinctions
+between father's brother and mother's brother, and between father's
+sister and mother's sister, which are characteristic of the usual
+forms of the classificatory system, are the obvious consequence of the
+principle of exogamy. If this principle be in action, these relatives
+must always belong to different social groups, so that it would be
+natural to distinguish them in nomenclature.
+
+Further, there are certain features of the classificatory system which
+suggest its origin in a special form of exogamous social grouping,
+viz., that usually known as the dual system in which there are only two
+social groups or moieties. It is an almost universal feature of the
+classificatory system that the children of brothers are classed with
+the children of sisters. A man applies the same term to his mother's
+sister's children which he uses for his father's brother's children,
+and the use of this term, being the same as that used for a brother
+or sister, carries with it the most rigorous prohibition of marriage.
+Such a condition would not follow necessarily from a social state in
+which there were more than two social groups. If the society were
+patrilineal, the children of two brothers would necessarily belong to
+the same social group, so that the principle of exogamy would prevent
+marriage between them, but if the women of the group had married into
+different clans, there is no reason arising out of the principle of
+exogamy which should prevent marriage between their children or lead
+to the use of a term common to them and the children of brothers.
+Similarly, if the society were matrilineal, the children of two sisters
+would necessarily belong to the same social group, but this would
+not be the case with the children of brothers who might marry into
+different social groups.
+
+If, however, there be only two social groups, the case is very
+different. It would make no difference whether descent were patrilineal
+or matrilineal. In each case the children of two brothers or of two
+sisters must belong to the same moiety, while the children of brother
+and sister must belong to different moieties. The children of two
+brothers would be just as ineligible as consorts as the children of
+two sisters. Similarly, it would be a natural consequence of the dual
+organisation that the mother's brother's children should be classed
+with the father's sister's children, but this would not be necessary if
+there were more than two social groups.
+
+I should have liked, if there were time, to deal with other features
+of the classificatory system, but must be content with these examples.
+I hope to have succeeded in showing that the social causation of the
+terminology of relationship goes far beyond the mere dependence of
+features of the system on special forms of marriage, and that the
+character of the classificatory system as a whole has been determined
+by its origin in a specific form of social organisation. I propose now
+to leave the classificatory system for a moment and inquire whether
+another system of denoting and classifying relationships may not
+similarly be shown to be determined by social conditions. The system I
+shall consider is our own. Let us examine this system in its relation
+to the form of social organisation prevalent among ourselves.
+
+Just as among most peoples of rude culture the clan or other
+exogamous group is the essential unit of social organisation, so
+among ourselves this social unit is the family, using this term for
+the group consisting of a man, his wife, and their children. If we
+examine our terms of relationship, we find that those applied to
+individual persons and those used in a narrow and well-defined sense
+are just those in which the family is intimately concerned. The terms
+father, mother, husband and wife, brother and sister, are limited to
+members of the family of the speaker, and the terms father-, mother-,
+brother-, and sister-in-law to the members of the family of the wife
+or husband in the same narrowly restricted sense. Similarly, the
+terms grandfather and grandmother are limited to the parents of the
+father and mother, while the terms grandson and granddaughter are
+only used of the families of the children in the narrow sense. The
+terms uncle and aunt, nephew and niece, are used in a less restricted
+sense, but even these terms are only used of persons who stand in a
+close relation to the family of the speaker. We have only one term
+used with anything approaching the wide connotation of classificatory
+terms of relationship, and this term is used for a group of relatives
+who have as their chief feature in common that they are altogether
+outside the proper circle of the family and have no social obligations
+or privileges. They are as eligible for marriage as any other members
+of the community, and only in the very special cases I considered in
+the first lecture are they brought into any kind of legal relation.
+The dependence of our own use of terms of relationship on the social
+institution of the family seems to me so obvious that I find it
+difficult to understand how anyone who has considered these terms
+can put forward the view that the terminology of relationship is not
+socially conditioned. It seems to me that we have only to have the
+proposition stated that the classificatory system and our own are the
+outcome of the social institutions of the clan and family respectively
+for the social causation of such terminology to become conspicuous. I
+find it difficult to understand why it has not long before this been
+universally recognised. I do not think we can have a better example
+of the confusion and prejudice which have been allowed to envelop the
+subject through the unfortunate introduction of the problem of the
+primitive promiscuity or monogamy of mankind. It is not necessary to
+have an expert knowledge of the classificatory system. It is only
+necessary to consider the terms we have used almost from our cradles
+in relation to their social setting to see how the terminology of
+relationship has been determined by that setting.
+
+This brief study of our own terms of relationship leads me to speak
+about the name by which our system is generally known. Morgan called
+it the "descriptive system," and this term has been generally adopted.
+I believe, however, that it is wholly inappropriate. Those terms which
+apply to one person and to one person only may be called descriptive
+if you please, though even here the use does not seem very happy. When
+we pass beyond these, however, our terms are no whit more descriptive
+than those of the classificatory system. We speak of a grandfather,
+not of a father's father or a mother's father, only distinguishing
+grandfathers in this manner when it is necessary to supplement our
+customary terminology by more exact description. Similarly, we speak
+of a brother-in-law, and only in exceptional circumstances do we use
+forms of language which indicate whether reference is being made to
+the brother of the husband or wife or to the husband of a sister. Such
+occasional usages do not make our system descriptive, and if they be
+held to do so, the classificatory system is just as descriptive as our
+own. All those peoples who use the classificatory system are capable
+of such exact description of relationship as I have mentioned. Indeed,
+classificatory systems are often more descriptive than our own. In
+some forms of this system true descriptive terms are found in habitual
+use. Thus, in the coastal systems of Fiji the mother's brother is often
+called _ngandina_ (_ngane_, sister of a man, and _tina_, mother), this
+term being used in place of the _vungo_ already mentioned. Similar
+uses of descriptive terms occur in other parts of Melanesia. Thus, in
+Santa Cruz the father's sister is called _inwerderde_ (_inwe_, sister,
+and _derde_, father). This relative is one for whom Melanesian systems
+of relationship not infrequently possess no special designation, and
+the use of a descriptive term suggests a recent process which has come
+into action in order to denote a relative who had previously lacked any
+special designation.
+
+If "descriptive" is thus an inappropriate name for our own system,
+it will be necessary to find another, and I should like boldly to
+recognise the direct dependence of its characters on the institution of
+the family and to speak of it as the "family system."
+
+While I thus reject the term "descriptive" as a proper name for the
+terminology of relationship with which we are especially familiar, it
+does not follow that there may not be systems of denoting relationship
+which properly deserve this title. In Samoa a mode of denoting
+relatives is often used in which the great majority of the terms are
+descriptive. Thus, the only term which I could obtain for the father's
+brother's son was _atalii o le uso o le tama_, which is literally "son
+of the brother of the father," and there is some reason to suppose
+that this descriptive usage has come into vogue owing to the total
+inadequacy of the ancient Samoan system to express relationships in
+which the peoples are now interested.
+
+The wide use of such descriptive terms is also found in many systems
+of Europe, as in the Celtic languages, in those of Scandinavia, in
+Lithuanian and Esthonian.[32] A similar mode of denoting relationships
+is found in Semitic languages and among the Shilluks and Dinkas of the
+Anglo-Egyptian Sudan, and since it is from these peoples that I have
+gained my own experience of descriptive terminology, I propose to take
+them as my examples.
+
+[32] See Tables in Morgan's _Systems ..._, pp. 79-127.
+
+In the Arabic system of relationship used in Egypt many of the terms
+are descriptive; thus, the father's brother being called _'amm_, the
+father's brother's wife is _mirat 'ammi_, the father's brother's son
+_ibn 'ammi_, and the father's brother's daughter _bint 'ammi_, and
+there is a similar usage for the consorts and children of the father's
+sister and of the brother and sister of the mother.
+
+Similarly, many Shilluk terms suggest a descriptive character, the
+father's brother being _wa_, the wife of the father's brother is
+_chiwa_, the father's brother's son is _uwa_, and his daughter is
+_nyuwa_. The father's sister being _waja_, her son and daughter are
+_uwaja_ and _nyuwaja_ respectively. Similar descriptive terms are
+used by the Dinkas. The father's brother being _walen_, the father's
+brother's son is _manwalen_ and his daughter _yanwalen_; the mother's
+brother being _ninar_, the mother's brother's son is _manninar_ and his
+daughter _yanninar_.
+
+According to the main thesis of these lectures, these descriptive
+usages should own some definite social cause. The descriptive
+terminology seems to be particularly definite in the case of cousins,
+and it might be suggested that they are dependent, at any rate in part
+and in so far as Egypt is concerned, on the prevalence of marriage
+with a cousin. Marriages with the daughter of a father's brother or of
+a mother's brother are especially orthodox and popular in Egypt, and
+different degrees of preference for marriage with different classes of
+cousin would produce just such a social need as would have led to the
+definite distinction of the different kinds of cousin from one another
+by means of descriptive terms.
+
+It is more probable, however, that the use of descriptive terms in the
+languages of the Semites and of the Shilluks and Dinkas has been the
+outcome of a definite form of social organisation, viz., that in which
+the social unit is neither the family in the narrow sense, nor the
+clan, but that body of persons of common descent living in one house or
+in some other kind of close association which we call the patriarchal
+or extended family, the _Grossfamilie_ of the Germans. It is a feature
+of the Semitic and Nilotic systems, not only to distinguish the four
+chief categories of cousin, but also the four chief kinds of uncle or
+aunt, viz., the father's brother, the father's sister, the mother's
+brother and the mother's sister, all of whom are habitually classed
+together in our system, while some of them are classed with the father
+or mother in the classificatory system. The Semitic and Nilotic
+terminology is such as would follow from a form of social organisation
+in which the more intimate relationships of the family in the narrow
+sense are definitely recognised, but yet certain uncles, aunts, and
+cousins are of so much importance as to make it necessary for social
+purposes that they shall be denoted exactly. The brothers of the father
+and the unmarried sisters of the father would be of the same social
+group as the father, while the brothers and unmarried sisters of the
+mother would be of a different social group, which would account for
+their distinctive nomenclature, while within the social group it would
+be necessary to distinguish the father from his brothers. It would be
+too cumbrous to call this variety of system after the extended family,
+and I suggest that it should be called the "kindred" system.
+
+Analogy with other parts of the world suggests that all those of the
+same generation in the social group formed by the extended family may
+once have been classed together under one term, and that, as later
+there arose social motives requiring the distinction of different
+relatives so classed together, descriptive terms came into use to
+make the necessary distinctions. You must please regard this only
+as a suggestion. We need far more detailed evidence concerning the
+social status of different relatives among the peoples who use these
+descriptive terms. Such knowledge as we possess seems to point to the
+dependence of the Semitic and Sudanese terminology upon the social
+institution of the extended family, just as our own system depends
+on the social institution of the family in the narrow sense and the
+classificatory system upon the clan.
+
+If this descriptive mode of nomenclature be thus the outcome of a
+social organisation of which the essential element is the extended
+family, I need hardly point out how natural it is that we should
+find this kind of nomenclature so widely in Europe. The presence of
+this descriptive terminology in Celtic and Scandinavian languages,
+in Lithuanian and Esthonian, would be examples of the persistence of
+a form of nomenclature which had its origin in the kindred of the
+extended family. On this view we must believe that, in other languages
+of Europe, this mode of nomenclature has gradually been replaced by one
+dependent on the social institution of the family in the narrow sense.
+
+At this point I should like to sum up briefly the position to which
+our argument has taken us. I have first shown the dependence of a
+number of special features of the classificatory system of relationship
+upon special forms of marriage. Then I have shown that certain
+broad varieties of the classificatory system are to be referred to
+different forms of social organisation and to the different degrees
+in which the regulation of marriage by means of clan-exogamy has
+been replaced by a mechanism dependent upon kinship or genealogical
+relationship. From that I was led to refer the general features of
+the classificatory system to the dependence of this system upon the
+social unit of the clan as opposed to the family which I believe to
+be the basis of our own terminology of relationship. I then pointed
+to several features of the classificatory system which suggest that
+it arose in that special variety of the clan-organisation in which
+a community consists of two exogamous moieties, forming the social
+structure usually known as the dual organisation. I considered more
+fully the dependence of our own mode of denoting relatives upon the
+social institution of the family, and then a study of the descriptive
+terminology of relationship has led me to suggest that certain modes of
+denoting relationship in Egypt, the Sudan and many European countries
+may be examples of a third main variety of system of relationship
+which has arisen out of the patriarchal or extended family. We should
+thus have three main varieties of system of relationship in place of
+the two which have hitherto been recognised, having their origins
+respectively in the clan, in the family in the narrow sense, and in
+the extended or patriarchal family. These three varieties may be
+regarded as genera within each of which are species and varieties
+depending upon special social conditions which have arisen within
+each kind of social grouping, either as the result of changes within
+each form of social organisation or of transitions from one form to
+another. We know of a far larger number of such varieties within the
+classificatory system than within those due to the two forms of the
+family, and this is probably due in some measure to the fact that the
+classificatory system is still by far the most widely distributed form
+over the earth's surface. Still more important, however, is the fact
+that among the peoples who use the classificatory system there is an
+infinitely greater variety of social institution, and especially of
+forms of marriage, than exist among civilised peoples whose main social
+unit, the family, is not one which is capable of any extended range of
+variation. The result of the complete survey has been to justify my use
+of the classificatory system as the means whereby to demonstrate the
+dependence of the terminology of relationship upon social conditions.
+It is the great variability of this mode of denoting relatives which
+makes it so valuable an instrument for the study of the laws which have
+governed the history of that department of language by which mankind
+has denoted those who stand in social relations to himself.
+
+       *       *       *       *       *
+
+You may have been wondering whether I am going to say anything about
+the merits of the controversy which has till now given to systems of
+relationship their chief interest among students of sociology. I have
+so far left on one side the subjects which have been the main ground
+of controversy ever since the time of Morgan. You will have gathered
+that I regard it as a grave misfortune for the science of sociology
+that the topics of promiscuity and group-marriage should have been
+thrust by Morgan into the prominent place which they have ever since
+occupied in the theoretical study of relationship. Even now I should
+have liked to leave them on one side on the ground that the evidence
+is as yet insufficient to make them profitable subjects for such exact
+inquiry as I believe to be the proper business of sociology. Their
+very prominence, however, makes it impossible to leave them wholly
+unconsidered, but I propose to deal with them very briefly.
+
+I begin with the question whether the classificatory system of
+relationship provides us with any evidence that mankind once possessed
+a form of social organisation, or rather such an absence of social
+organisation, as would accompany a condition of general promiscuity
+in which, if one can speak of marriage at all, marriage was practised
+between all and any members of the community, including brothers and
+sisters. I can deal with this subject very briefly because I hope to
+have succeeded elsewhere in knocking away the support on which the
+whole of Morgan's own construction rested.
+
+Morgan deduced his stage of promiscuity from the Hawaiian system,
+which he supposed to be the most primitive form of classificatory
+nomenclature. In an article published in 1907 I showed[33] that it
+rather represents a late stage in the history of the more ordinary
+forms of the classificatory system. My conclusion at that time was
+based on the scanty evidence derived from the relatively few Oceanic
+systems which had then been recorded, but my work since that article
+was written has shown the absolute correctness of my earlier opinion,
+which I can now support by a far larger body of evidence than was
+available in 1907. It remains possible, however, that the Hawaiian
+system may have had its source in promiscuity, even though this
+condition be late rather than primitive, but it would be going beyond
+the scope of these lectures to deal fully with this subject here. I
+cannot forbear, however, from mentioning that Hawaiian promiscuity,
+in so far as it existed, was not the condition of the whole people,
+but only of the chiefs who alone were allowed to contract brother
+and sister marriages, while I have evidence that the avoidance of
+brother and sister in Melanesia, which has so often been regarded as
+a survival of man's early promiscuity, is capable of a very different
+explanation.[34] Our available knowledge, whether derived from features
+of the classificatory system or from other social facts, does not
+provide one shred of evidence in favour of such a condition as was put
+forward by Morgan as the earliest stage of human society, nor is there
+any evidence that such promiscuity has ever been the ruling principle
+of a people at any later stage of the history of mankind.
+
+[33] _Anthropological Essays presented to E. B. Tylor_, Oxford, 1907,
+p. 309.
+
+[34] For the full evidence on these topics see my forthcoming book _The
+History of Melanesian Society_.
+
+The subject of group-marriage is one about which I do not find it
+possible to speak so dogmatically. It would take me more than another
+lecture to deal adequately with the Melanesian evidence alone, and I
+must content myself with two remarks. Firstly, I think it desirable
+to throw aside the term group-marriage as only confusing the issue,
+and to speak rather of a state of organised sexual communism, in which
+sexual relations are recognised as orthodox between the men of one
+social group and the women of another. Secondly, the classificatory
+system has several features which would follow naturally from such a
+condition of sexual communism. I have evidence from Melanesia which
+places beyond question the former presence of such a condition, with
+features of culture which become readily explicable if they be the
+survivals of such a state of sexual communism as is suggested by the
+terminology of the classificatory system. This evidence comes from
+only one part of the world, but it is enough to convince me that we
+have no right to dismiss from our minds a state of organised sexual
+communism as a feature of the social development of mankind. The wide
+distribution of the classificatory system would suggest that this
+communism has been very general, but it need not have been universal,
+and even if the widespread existence of organised sexual communism be
+established, it would not follow that it represents the earliest stage
+in the evolution of human society. There are certain features even of
+the classificatory system itself which suggest that, if this system be
+founded in sexual communism, this communism was not primitive, but grew
+out of a condition in which only such ties of kinship were recognised
+as would result from the social institution of the family.
+
+I must be content with this brief reference to the subject. The object
+of these lectures is to demonstrate the dependence of the terminology
+of relationship upon social conditions, and the dependence of the
+classificatory system upon a condition of sexual communism is not
+now capable of demonstration. The classificatory mode of denoting
+relationship should, however, act as a suggestion and stimulus, and as
+a preventative of dogmatic statement in a part of our subject which, in
+spite of its entrancing interest, still lies only at the edge of our
+slowly spreading circle of exact knowledge.
+
+In conclusion, I should like to point out briefly some of the lessons
+of more general interest which may be learnt from the facts I have
+brought before you in these lectures. I hope that one result has been
+to convince you of the danger lying in the use of the _reductio ad
+absurdum_ argument when dealing with cultures widely different from our
+own. In the literature of the subject one often meets the adjectives
+"absurd" and "impossible" applied in some cases to social conditions
+in which the actual existence of the absurdities or impossibilities
+can be demonstrated. I may take as an example the argument of Mr. N. W.
+Thomas, which I have already mentioned, in which the classing of the
+maternal grandfather with the elder brother by the Dieri is regarded
+as reducing to an absurdity the contention that classificatory terms
+express ties of kinship. If Mr. Thomas had had a more lively faith in
+the social meaning of terms of relationship, he might have been led to
+notice that the Dieri marry the granddaughter of a brother, a fact he
+appears, in common with many other readers of Howitt, to have missed;
+one result of this marriage is to bring about just such a relationship
+as Howitt records without a man being his own great-uncle, as is
+supposed to be necessary by Mr. Thomas.
+
+Still another example may be taken from Professor Kroeber. He states
+that the classing together of the grandfather and the father-in-law
+which is found in the Dakota system, when worked out to its
+implications, would lead to the absurd conclusion that marriage with
+the mother was once customary among the Sioux. Here again, if Professor
+Kroeber had been less imbued with his belief in a purely linguistic
+and psychological chain of causation, and had been ready to entertain
+the idea that there might be a social meaning, he must have been led
+to see that the features of nomenclature in question would follow from
+other forms of marriage, and two of these, whatever their apparent
+improbability in America, cannot well be called absurd, since they are
+known to occur in other parts of the world. Following Riggs, Professor
+Kroeber does not specify which kinds of grandfather and father-in-law
+are classed together in Dakotan nomenclature, but in the full list
+given by Morgan, it is evident that one term is used for the fathers of
+both father and mother and for the fathers of both husband and wife.
+The classing of the father's father with the wife's father would be a
+natural result of marriage with the father's sister, while the common
+nomenclature for father's father and husband's father would result from
+marriage with the brother's daughter. It is not without significance
+that the features of nomenclature which would be the result of one
+or other, or of both these marriages, occur in a system which also
+bears evidence of the cross-cousin marriage, for these three forms
+of marriage occur in conjunction in one part of Melanesia, viz., the
+Torres Islands.
+
+The foregoing instance, together with many others scattered through
+these lectures, will have pointed clearly to another lesson. In
+the present state of our knowledge a working scheme or hypothesis
+has largely to be judged by its utility. A way of regarding social
+phenomena which obstructs inquiry and leads people to overlook facts
+has its disadvantages, to say the least, while a scheme or hypothesis
+which leads people to worry out and discover things which do not lie on
+the surface will establish a strong claim on our consideration, even
+if it should ultimately turn out to be only the partial truth. I will
+give only one instance to illustrate how a belief in the dependence of
+the terminology of relationship on forms of marriage might act as a
+stimulus to research.
+
+In a system from the United Provinces recorded by Mr. E. A. H. Blunt
+in the Report of the last Indian Census, one term, _bahu_, is used
+for the son's wife, for the wife, and for the mother.[35] Mr. Blunt
+puts on one side without hesitation the possibility that such common
+nomenclature can have been the result of any form of marriage, and
+ascribes it to the custom whereby a man and his wife live with the
+husband's parents, in consequence of which the son's wife, who is
+called _bahu_ by her husband, is also called _bahu_ by everyone else in
+the house. The causation of the common nomenclature which is thus put
+forward is a possible, perhaps even a probable, explanation. In such a
+case we should have a social chain of causation in which the son's wife
+is called _bahu_ because she is one of a social group bound together
+by the ties of a common habitation. It can do no harm, however, to
+bear in mind as an alternative the possibility that the terminology
+may have arisen out of a form of marriage. It is evident that the use
+of a common term for the wife and the son's wife would follow from a
+form of polyandry in which a man and his son have a wife in common. A
+further result of this form of marriage would be that the wife of the
+son, being also the wife of his father, would have the status of a
+mother.[36] We have no evidence for the presence of such a marriage in
+India, but our knowledge of the sociology of the more backward peoples
+of India is not so complete that we can afford to neglect any clue. The
+possibility suggested by the mode of using the term _bahu_ should lead
+us to look for other evidence of such a form of polyandry among the
+ruder elements of the population of India, of whose social structure
+our present knowledge is so fragmentary.
+
+[35] _Census of India_, 1911, vol. xv., p. 234.
+
+[36] In such a case the use of the term by other members of the
+household, including women, would be the result of a later extension of
+meaning.
+
+Another important result of our study of the terminology of
+relationship is that it helps us to understand the proper place of
+psychological explanation in sociology. These lectures have largely
+been devoted to the demonstration of the failure to explain features
+of the terminology of relationship on psychological grounds. If this
+demonstration has been successful, it is not because the terminology
+of relationship is anything peculiar, differing from other bodies of
+sociological facts; it is because in relationship we have to do with
+definite and clean-cut facts. The terminology of relationship is only
+a specially favourable example by means of which to show the value
+of an attitude towards, and mode of treatment of, social facts which
+hold good, though less conspicuously, throughout the whole field of
+sociology.
+
+In social, as in all other kinds of human activity, psychological
+factors must have an essential part. I have myself in these lectures
+pointed to psychological considerations as elements in the problems
+with which the sociologist has to deal. These psychological elements
+are, however, only concomitants of social processes with which it is
+possible to deal apart from their psychological aspect. It has been
+the task of these lectures to refer the social facts of relationship
+to antecedent social conditions, and I believe that this is the proper
+method of sociology. Even at the present time, however, it is possible
+to support sociological arguments by means of considerations provided
+by psychological motives, and the assistance thus rendered to sociology
+will become far greater as the science of social psychology advances.
+
+This is, however, a process very different from the interpolation of
+psychological facts as links in the chain of causation connecting
+social antecedents with social consequences. It is in no spirit of
+hostility to social psychology, but in the hope that it may help us to
+understand its proper place in the study of social institutions that
+I venture to put forward the method followed in these lectures as one
+proper to the science of sociology.[37]
+
+[37] See also "Survival in Sociology," _Sociological Review_, 1913,
+vol. vi., p. 293. I hope shortly to deal more fully with the relations
+between sociology and social psychology.
+
+It may be that there will be those who will accept my main position,
+but will urge that these lectures have been devoted to the criticism
+of an extreme position, the position taken up by Professor Kroeber.
+They may say that they have never believed in the purely psychological
+causation of the terminology of relationship. In reply to such an
+attitude I can only express my conviction that the paper of Professor
+Kroeber is only the explicit and clear statement of an attitude which
+is implicit in the work of nearly all, if not all, the opponents of
+Morgan since McLennan. Whether they have themselves recognised it
+or not, I believe that it has been this underlying attitude towards
+sociological problems which has prevented them from seeing what is
+good in Morgan's work, from sifting out the chaff from the wheat of
+his argument, and from recognising how great is the importance to the
+science of sociology of the body of facts which Morgan was the first to
+collect and study. I feel that we owe a debt of gratitude to Professor
+Kroeber for having brought the matter into the open and for having
+presented, as a clear issue, a fundamental problem of the methods of
+sociology.
+
+Lastly, I should like to point out how rigorous and exact has been the
+process of the determination of the nomenclature of relationship by
+social conditions which has been demonstrated in these lectures. We
+have here a case in which the principle of determinism applies with a
+rigour and definiteness equal to that of any of the exact sciences.
+According to my scheme, not only has the general character of systems
+of relationship been strictly determined by social conditions, but
+every detail of these systems has also been so determined. Even so
+small and apparently insignificant a feature as the classing of the
+sister-in-law with the sister has been found to lead back to a definite
+social condition arising out of the regulation of marriage and of
+sexual relations. If sociology is to become a science fit to rank
+with other sciences, it must, like them, be rigorously deterministic.
+Social phenomena do not come into being of themselves. The proposition
+that we class two relatives together in nomenclature because the
+relationships are similar is, if it stand alone, nothing more than a
+form of words. It is incumbent on those who believe in the importance
+of the psychological similarity of social phenomena to show in what
+the supposed similarity consists and how it has come about--in other
+words, how it has been determined. It has been my chief object in these
+lectures to show that, in so far as such similarities exist in the case
+of relationship, they have been determined by social conditions. Only
+by attention to this aim throughout the whole field of social phenomena
+can we hope to rid sociology of the reproach, so often heard, that it
+is not a science; only thus can we refute those who go still further
+and claim that it can never be a science.
+
+
+
+
+INDEX
+
+
+  "Absurd" in sociology, 32, 87.
+
+  America, North, 10, 18, 49, 55.
+
+  Anaiteum, 22.
+
+  Aniwa, 22.
+
+  Assiniboin, 51.
+
+  Australia, 11, 32.
+
+  Avoidance, 85.
+
+
+  Banks Is., 12, 16, 28, 42, 53, 61, 68.
+
+  Bellamy, R. L., 56.
+
+  Blunt, E. A. H., 90.
+
+  Bougainville I., 40.
+
+  Brother-in-law, functions of, 12.
+
+  Buin, 40.
+
+
+  Canarese, 47.
+
+  Celtic terms, 78, 81.
+
+  Cherokees, 53.
+
+  Chiefs, 85.
+
+  Choctas, 53.
+
+  Christianity, 30.
+
+  Clan, 67, 71, 74.
+
+  Classes, matrimonial, 32, 39.
+
+  Classificatory relationship, 2, 4, 19, 83.
+
+  Codrington, Dr., 28, 30, 68.
+
+  Communism in property, 12;
+    sexual, 62, 86.
+
+  Concomitant variations, method of, 70.
+
+  "Creek" Indians, 53.
+
+  Crees, 50, 55.
+
+  Cross-cousins, 20, 28;
+    _see_ marriage.
+
+  "Crow" Indians, 53.
+
+
+  Dakotas, 51, 88.
+
+  Descent, 34, 39, 73.
+
+  Descriptive system, 76;
+    terms, 77, 81.
+
+  Determinism, 7, 93.
+
+  Dieri, 32, 37, 88.
+
+  Dinkas, 78.
+
+  Dorsey, J. O., 51.
+
+  Dual organisation, 32, 34, 58, 67, 72, 82.
+
+
+  Eddystone I., 68, 70.
+
+  Egidi, Father, 16.
+
+  Egypt, 78, 79.
+
+  English terms of relationship, 13, 74.
+
+  Eromanga, 22.
+
+  Esthonia, 78, 81.
+
+  Exchange of brothers and sisters, 43.
+
+  Exogamy, 68, 72.
+
+
+  Family, 74, 77, 87;
+    extended, 79, 81.
+
+  Father's sister, functions of, 16.
+
+  Field, Rev. J. T., 57.
+
+  Fiji, 22, 31, 39, 77.
+
+  Fison, Rev. L., 26.
+
+  Florida, 45, 69.
+
+  Freire-Marreco, Miss B., 53, 55.
+
+  Functions of relatives, 6, 11, 12, 15.
+
+
+  Gait, E. A., 47.
+
+  Genealogical method, 23, 31.
+
+  Genealogical relationship, 68, 70.
+
+  Gillen, F. J., 11.
+
+  Gonds, 26.
+
+  Group-marriage, 6, 86.
+
+  Guadalcanar, 23, 45.
+
+
+  Haidahs, 54.
+
+  Hawaiian Is., 15, 66, 68;
+    system, 66, 84.
+
+  Head, sanctity of, 12.
+
+  Hopi Indians, 55.
+
+  Howitt, A. W., 11, 88.
+
+
+  India, 18, 26, 47, 90.
+
+
+  Kindred, 80.
+
+  Kinship, 1, 67, 82.
+
+  Kohler, J., 8, 19.
+
+  Kroeber, A. L., 9, 25, 52, 60, 62, 64, 88, 93.
+
+  Kuni, 16.
+
+
+  Lithuania, 78, 81.
+
+
+  McLennan, J. F., 6, 17.
+
+  Malayalam, 47.
+
+  "Malayan" system, 65, 68.
+
+  Maori, 66.
+
+  Marriage, 1, 60;
+    between brother and sister, 85;
+    by exchange, 43;
+    group-, 6, 86;
+    regulation of, 67;
+    with brother's daughter, 89;
+    with brother's granddaughter, 34, 37, 56;
+    with cousin, 79;
+    with cross-cousin, 20, 39, 43, 47, 49, 54;
+    with deceased wife's sister, 65;
+    with father's sister, 89;
+    with wife of father's father, 40, 57;
+    with wife of mother's brother, 30, 33, 52.
+
+  Massim, 56.
+
+  Mbau, 22.
+
+  Mekeo, 16, 70.
+
+  Melanesia, 14, 19, 28, 45, 52, 61, 66, 77, 85, 89.
+
+  Morgan, Lewis, 4, 10, 18, 26, 47, 50, 65, 84, 93.
+
+  Mother's brother, functions of, 15.
+
+
+  New Hebrides, 22, 31, 68.
+
+  New Guinea, 16, 56, 69.
+
+  Niue, 15.
+
+
+  Pantutun, John, 33, 37.
+
+  Pawnees, 53, 54.
+
+  Pedigrees, 31, 70.
+
+  Pentecost I., 31.
+
+  Polyandry, 7, 90.
+
+  Polynesia, 15, 61, 66.
+
+  Prediction, 26.
+
+  Promiscuity, 6, 75, 84.
+
+  Psychology, 10, 17, 24, 29, 38, 52, 62, 63, 66, 91, 94.
+
+  Pueblo Indians, 53.
+
+
+  "Red Knives" Indians, 49.
+
+  Riggs, Rev. S. R., 51, 89.
+
+  Roth, W., 11.
+
+
+  Salutations, 7, 10.
+
+  Samoa, 77.
+
+  San Cristoval, 46.
+
+  Santa Cruz, 15, 68, 77.
+
+  Scandinavia, 78, 81.
+
+  Seligmann, C. G., 56.
+
+  Semitic terms, 78, 81.
+
+  Shilluks, 78.
+
+  Sioux, 53, 54, 88.
+
+  Sladen Trust, 14.
+
+  Sociology, 10, 26, 70, 84, 92, 94.
+
+  Solomon Is., 15, 23, 45, 67, 68.
+
+  Spencer, B., 11.
+
+  Sudan, 78, 81.
+
+  Survival, 39, 43, 46, 48, 59, 86, 92.
+
+  Swanton, J. R., 55.
+
+
+  Tamil, 47.
+
+  Tanna, 22.
+
+  Telegu, 47.
+
+  Tewa Indians, 53.
+
+  Thomas, N. W., 32, 88.
+
+  Thurnwald, R., 40.
+
+  Tikopia, 15, 67.
+
+  Todas, 49.
+
+  Tonga, 15, 67.
+
+  Torres Is., 89.
+
+  Torres Straits, 11, 44.
+
+  Trobriand Is., 55.
+
+  Tubetube, 57.
+
+
+  Wagawaga, 56, 58.
+
+  Wedau, 58.
+
+  Widow, 12, 30, 41.
+
+
+  "Yellow Knife" Indians, 49.
+
+  Ysabel, 46.
+
+
+GARDEN CITY PRESS LIMITED, PRINTERS, LETCHWORTH.
+
+
+
+
+LIST OF STUDIES IN ECONOMICS & POLITICAL SCIENCE.
+
+_A Series of Monographs by Lecturers and Students connected with the
+London School of Economics and Political Science._
+
+
+EDITED BY THE
+
+DIRECTOR OF THE LONDON SCHOOL OF ECONOMICS AND POLITICAL SCIENCE.
+
+~1. The History of Local Rates in England.~ The substance of five
+lectures given at the School in November and December, 1895. By EDWIN
+CANNAN, M.A., LL.D. 1896; second, enlarged edition, 1912; xv and 215
+pp., Crown 8vo, cloth. 3s. 6d. net.
+
+  _P. S. King and Son._
+
+~2. Select Documents Illustrating the History of Trade Unionism.~
+I.--THE TAILORING TRADE. By F. W. GALTON. With a Preface by SIDNEY
+WEBB, LL.B. 1896; 242 pp., Cr. 8vo, cloth. 5s.
+
+  _P. S. King and Son._
+
+~3. German Social Democracy.~ Six lectures delivered at the School in
+February and March, 1896. By the Hon. BERTRAND RUSSELL, B.A., late
+Fellow of Trinity College, Cambridge. With an Appendix on Social
+Democracy and the Woman Question in Germany. By ALYS RUSSELL, B.A.
+1896; 204 pp., Cr. 8vo, cloth. 3s. 6d.
+
+  _P. S. King and Son._
+
+~4. The Referendum in Switzerland.~ By M. SIMON DEPLOIGE, University of
+Louvain. With a Letter on the Referendum in Belgium by M. J. VAN DEN
+HEUVEL, Professor of International Law in the University of Louvain.
+Translated by C. P. TREVELYAN, M.A., Trinity College, Cambridge, and
+edited with Notes, Introduction, Bibliography, and Appendices, by
+LILIAN TOMN (Mrs. Knowles), of Girton College, Cambridge, Research
+Student at the School. 1898; x and 344 pp., Cr. 8vo, cloth, 7s. 6d.
+
+  _P. S. King and Son._
+
+~5. The Economic Policy of Colbert.~ By A. J. SARGENT, M.A., Senior
+Hulme Exhibitioner, Brasenose College, Oxford; and Whately Prizeman,
+1897, Trinity College, Dublin. 1899; viii and 138 pp., Cr. 8vo, cloth.
+2s. 6d.
+
+  _P. S. King and Son._
+
+~6. Local Variations in Wages.~ (The Adam Smith Prize, Cambridge
+University, 1898.) By F. W. LAWRENCE, M.A., Fellow of Trinity College,
+Cambridge. 1899; viii and 90 pp., with Index and 18 Maps and Diagrams.
+Quarto, 11 in. by 8-1/2 in., cloth. 8s. 6d.
+
+  _Longmans, Green and Co._
+
+~7. The Receipt Roll of the Exchequer for Michaelmas Term of the
+Thirty-first Year of Henry II. (1185).~ A unique fragment transcribed
+and edited by the Class in Palaeography and Diplomatic, under the
+supervision of the Lecturer, HUBERT HALL, F.S.A., of H.M. Public Record
+Office. With thirty-one Facsimile Plates in Collotype and Parallel
+readings from the contemporary Pipe Roll. 1899; vii and 37 pp.; Folio,
+15-1/2 in. by 11-1/2 in., in green cloth; 3 Copies left. Apply to the
+Director of the London School of Economics.
+
+~8. Elements of Statistics.~ By ARTHUR L. BOWLEY, M.A., Sc.D., F.S.S.,
+Cobden and Adam Smith Prizeman, Cambridge; Guy Silver Medallist of the
+Royal Statistical Society; Newmarch Lecturer, 1897-98. 500 pp., and 40
+Diagrams, Demy 8vo, cloth. 1901; Third edition, 1907; viii and 336 pp.
+10s. 6d. net.
+
+  _P. S. King and Son._
+
+~9. The Place of Compensation in Temperance Reform.~ By C. P. SANGER,
+M.A., late Fellow of Trinity College, Cambridge; Barrister-at-Law.
+1901; viii and 136 pp., Crown 8vo, cloth, 2s. 6d. net.
+
+  _P. S. King and Son._
+
+~10. A History of Factory Legislation.~ By B. L. HUTCHINS and A.
+HARRISON (Mrs. Spencer), B.A., D.Sc. (Econ.), London. With a Preface
+by SIDNEY WEBB, LL.B. 1903; new and revised edition, 1911, xvi and 298
+pp., Demy 8vo, cloth. 6s. net.
+
+  _P. S. King and Son._
+
+~11. The Pipe Roll of the Exchequer of the See of Winchester for
+the Fourth Year of the Episcopate of Peter Des Roches (1207).~
+Transcribed and edited from the original Roll in the possession of
+the Ecclesiastical Commissioners by the Class in Palaeography and
+Diplomatic, under the supervision of the Lecturer, HUBERT HALL, F.S.A.,
+of H.M. Public Record Office. With a frontispiece giving a Facsimile
+of the Roll. 1903; xlviii and 100 pp., Folio, 13-1/2 in. by 8-1/2 in.,
+green cloth. 15s. net.
+
+  _P. S. King and Son._
+
+~12. Self-Government in Canada and How it was Achieved. The Story of
+Lord Durham's Report.~ By F. BRADSHAW, B.A., D.Sc. (Econ.), London;
+Senior Hulme Exhibitioner, Brasenose College, Oxford. 1903; 414 pp.,
+Demy 8vo, cloth. 3s. 6d. net.
+
+  _P. S. King and Son._
+
+~13. History of the Commercial and Financial Relations Between England
+and Ireland from the Period of the Restoration.~ By ALICE EFFIE MURRAY
+(Mrs. Radice), D.Sc. (Econ.), former Student at Girton College,
+Cambridge; Research Student of the London School of Economics and
+Political Science. 1903; 486 pp., Demy 8vo, cloth. 3s. 6d. net.
+
+  _P. S. King and Son._
+
+~14. The English Peasantry and the Enclosure of Common Fields.~ By
+GILBERT SLATER, M.A., St. John's College, Cambridge; D.Sc. (Econ.),
+London. 1906; 337 pp., Demy 8vo, cloth. 10s. 6d. net.
+
+  _Constable and Co._
+
+~15. A History of the English Agricultural Labourer.~ By DR. W.
+HASBACH, Professor of Economics in the University of Kiel. Translated
+from the Second Edition (1908), by RUTH KENYON. Introduction by SIDNEY
+WEBB, LL.B. 1908; xvi and 470 pp., Demy 8vo, cloth. 7s. 6d. net.
+
+  _P. S. King and Son._
+
+~16. A Colonial Autocracy: New South Wales under Governor Macquarie
+(1810-1821).~ By MARION PHILLIPS, B.A., Melbourne, D.Sc. (Econ.),
+London. 1909; xxiii and 336 pp., Demy 8vo, cloth. 10s. 6d. net.
+
+  _P. S. King and Son._
+
+~17. India and the Tariff Problem.~ By H. B. LEES SMITH, M.A., M.P.
+1909; 120 pp., Crown 8vo, cloth. 3s. 6d. net.
+
+  _Constable and Co._
+
+~18. Practical Notes on the Management of Elections.~ Three Lectures
+delivered at the School in November, 1909, by ELLIS T. POWELL, LL.B.,
+B.Sc. (Econ.), Fellow of the Royal Historical and Royal Economic
+Societies, of the Inner Temple, Barrister-at-Law. 1909; 52 pp., 8vo,
+paper. 1s. 6d. net.
+
+  _P. S. King and Son._
+
+~19. The Political Development of Japan.~ By G. E. UYEHARA, B.A.,
+Washington, D.Sc. (Econ.), London. xxiv and 296 pp., Demy 8vo, cloth.
+1910. 8s. 6d. net.
+
+  _Constable and Co._
+
+~20. National and Local Finance.~ By J. WATSON GRICE, D.Sc. (Econ.),
+London. Preface by SIDNEY WEBB, LL.B. 1910; 428 pp., Demy 8vo, cloth.
+10s. 6d. net.
+
+  _P. S. King and Son._
+
+~21. An Example of Communal Currency.~ Facts about the Guernsey
+Market-house. By J. THEODORE HARRIS, B.A., with an Introduction by
+SIDNEY WEBB, LL.B., 1911; xiv and 62 pp., Crown 8vo, cloth, 1s. 6d.
+net; paper, 1s. net.
+
+  _P. S. King and Son._
+
+~22. Municipal Origins.~ History of Private Bill Legislation. By F. H.
+SPENCER, LL.B., D.Sc. (Econ.); with a Preface by Sir EDWARD CLARKE,
+K.C. 1911; xi and 333 pp., Demy 8vo, cloth. 10s. 6d. net.
+
+  _Constable and Co._
+
+~23. Seasonal Trades.~ By Various Authors. With an Introduction by
+SIDNEY WEBB. Edited by SIDNEY WEBB, LL.B., and ARNOLD FREEMAN, M.A.
+1912; xi and 410 pp., Demy 8vo, cloth. 7s. 6d. net.
+
+  _Constable and Co._
+
+~24. Grants in Aid.~ A Criticism and a Proposal. By SIDNEY WEBB, LL.B.
+1911; vii and 135 pp., Demy 8vo, cloth. 5s. net.
+
+  _Longmans, Green and Co._
+
+~25. The Panama Canal: A Study in International Law.~ By H. ARIAS,
+B.A., LL.D. 1911; xiv and 188 pp., 2 maps, bibliography, Demy 8vo,
+cloth. 10s. 6d. net.
+
+  _P. S. King and Co._
+
+~26. Combination Among Railway Companies.~ By W. A. ROBERTSON, B.A.
+1912; 105 pp., Demy 8vo, cloth. 1s. 6d. net; paper, 1s. net.
+
+  _Constable and Co._
+
+~27. War and the Private Citizen~: Studies in International Law. By A.
+PEARCE HIGGINS, M.A., LL.D.; with Introductory Note by the Rt. Hon.
+ARTHUR COHEN, K.C. 1912; xvi and 200 pp., Demy 8vo, cloth. 5s. net.
+
+  _P. S. King and Son._
+
+~28. Life in an English Village~: An Economic and Historical Survey of
+the Parish of Corsley, in Wiltshire. By M. F. DAVIES. 1909; xiii and
+319 pp., illustrations, bibliography, Demy 8vo, cloth. 10s. 6d. net.
+
+  _T. Fisher Unwin._
+
+~29. English Apprenticeship and Child Labour~: A History. By O. JOCELYN
+DUNLOP, D.Sc. (Econ.), London; with a Supplementary Section on the
+Modern Problem of Juvenile Labour, by the Author and R. D. DENMAN, M.P.
+1912; pp. 390, bibliography, Demy 8vo, cloth. 10s. 6d. net.
+
+  _T. Fisher Unwin._
+
+~30. Origin of Property and the Formation of the Village Community.~ By
+J. ST. LEWINSKI, D.Ec.Sc., Brussels. 1913; xi. and 71 pp., Demy 8vo,
+cloth. 3s. 6d. net.
+
+  _Constable and Co._
+
+~31. The Modern Tendency toward Industrial Combination in some Spheres
+of British Industry.~ By G. R. CARTER, M.A. 1913; xi and 386 pp., Demy
+8vo, cloth. 6s. net.
+
+  _Constable and Co._
+
+~32. Tariffs at Work~: An outline of Practical Tariff Administration.
+By JOHN HEDLEY HIGGINSON, B.Sc. (Econ.), Mitchell Student of the
+University of London; Cobden Prizeman and Silver Medallist. 1913; 150
+pp., Crown 8vo, cloth. 2s. net.
+
+  _P. S. King and Son._
+
+~33. English Taxation, 1640-1799.~ An Essay on Policy and Opinion. By
+WILLIAM KENNEDY, M.A., Shaw Research Student at the London School of
+Economics and Political Science. 1913; 200 pp., Demy 8vo. 7s. 6d. net.
+
+  _G. Bell and Sons._
+
+~34. Emigration from the United Kingdom to North America, 1763-1912.~
+By STANLEY C. JOHNSON, M.A., Cambridge. 1913; xvi and 387 pp., Demy
+8vo, cloth. 6s. net.
+
+  _G. Routledge and Sons._
+
+~35. The Financing of the Hundred Years' War from 1337 to 1360.~ By
+SCHUYLER B. TERRY. 1914; xvi and 199 pp., Demy 8vo, cloth. 6s. net.
+
+  _Constable and Co._
+
+~36. Social Organisation and Kinship.~ By W. H. R. RIVERS, M.D.,
+F.R.S., Fellow of St. John's College, Cambridge. 1913; viii and 96 pp.,
+Demy 8vo, cloth. 2s. 6d. net.
+
+  _Constable and Co._
+
+
+_Series of Bibliographies by Students of the School._
+
+~1. A Bibliography of Unemployment and the Unemployed.~ By F. ISABEL
+TAYLOR, B.Sc. (Econ.), London. Preface by SIDNEY WEBB, LL.B. 1909; xix
+and 71 pp., Demy 8vo, cloth, 2s. net; paper, 1s. 6d. net.
+
+  _P. S. King and Son._
+
+~2. Two Select Bibliographies of Mediaeval Historical Study.~ By
+MARGARET F. MOORE, M.A.; with Preface and Appendix by HUBERT HALL,
+F.S.A. 1912; pp. 185, Demy 8vo, cloth. 5s. net.
+
+  _Constable and Co._
+
+~3. Bibliography of Roads.~ By DOROTHY BALLEN: An enlarged and revised
+edition of a similar work compiled by Mr. and Mrs. Sidney Webb in 1906.
+With an introduction by Sir George Gibb. 1914; xviii. and 281 pp., Demy
+8vo, cloth. 15s. net.
+
+  _P. S. King and Son._
+
+~4. A Select Bibliography for the Study, Sources, and Literature of
+English Mediaeval Economic History.~ Edited by HUBERT HALL, F.S.A. 1913;
+xiii and 350 pp., Demy 8vo, cloth. 6s. net.
+
+  _P. S. King and Son._
+
+
+_Series of Geographical Studies._
+
+~1. The Reigate Sheet of the One-inch Ordnance Survey.~ A Study in the
+Geography of the Surrey Hills. By ELLEN SMITH. Introduction by H. J.
+Mackinder, M.A., M.P. 1910; xix and 110 pp., 6 maps, 23 illustrations.
+Crown 8vo, cloth. 5s. net.
+
+  _A. and C. Black._
+
+~2. The Highlands of South-West Surrey.~ A Geographical Study in
+Sand and Clay. By E. C. MATTHEWS. 1911; viii and 124 pp., 7 maps, 8
+illustrations, 8vo, cloth. 5s. net.
+
+  _A. and C. Black._
+
+
+_Series of Contour Maps of Critical Areas._
+
+~1. The Hudson-Mohawk Gap.~ Prepared by the Diagram Company from a map
+by B. B. Dickinson. 1913; 1 sheet 18 in. by 22-1/2 in. Scale 20 miles
+to 1 inch. 6d. net; post free, folded 7d., rolled 9d.
+
+  _Sifton, Praed and Co._
+
+
+
+
+Transcriber's Note
+
+
+The following apparent errors have been corrected:
+
+p. 8 (note) "Rechtswiss" changed to "Rechtswiss."
+
+p. 20 "now becomes" changed to "now become"
+
+Advertisement "contemproary" changed to "contemporary"
+
+Advertisement "was Achieved" changed to "was Achieved."
+
+Advertisement "Commerical and Financial" changed to "Commercial and
+Financial"
+
+
+
+
+
+
+End of Project Gutenberg's Kinship and Social Organisation, by W. H. R. Rivers
+
+*** END OF THIS PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK KINSHIP AND SOCIAL ORGANISATION ***
+
+***** This file should be named 44728.txt or 44728.zip *****
+This and all associated files of various formats will be found in:
+        http://www.gutenberg.org/4/4/7/2/44728/
+
+Produced by Henry Flower and the Online Distributed
+Proofreading Team at http://www.pgdp.net (This file was
+produced from images generously made available by The
+Internet Archive/Canadian Libraries)
+
+
+Updated editions will replace the previous one--the old editions
+will be renamed.
+
+Creating the works from public domain print editions means that no
+one owns a United States copyright in these works, so the Foundation
+(and you!) can copy and distribute it in the United States without
+permission and without paying copyright royalties.  Special rules,
+set forth in the General Terms of Use part of this license, apply to
+copying and distributing Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works to
+protect the PROJECT GUTENBERG-tm concept and trademark.  Project
+Gutenberg is a registered trademark, and may not be used if you
+charge for the eBooks, unless you receive specific permission.  If you
+do not charge anything for copies of this eBook, complying with the
+rules is very easy.  You may use this eBook for nearly any purpose
+such as creation of derivative works, reports, performances and
+research.  They may be modified and printed and given away--you may do
+practically ANYTHING with public domain eBooks.  Redistribution is
+subject to the trademark license, especially commercial
+redistribution.
+
+
+
+*** START: FULL LICENSE ***
+
+THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG LICENSE
+PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU DISTRIBUTE OR USE THIS WORK
+
+To protect the Project Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting the free
+distribution of electronic works, by using or distributing this work
+(or any other work associated in any way with the phrase "Project
+Gutenberg"), you agree to comply with all the terms of the Full Project
+Gutenberg-tm License (available with this file or online at
+http://gutenberg.org/license).
+
+
+Section 1.  General Terms of Use and Redistributing Project Gutenberg-tm
+electronic works
+
+1.A.  By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg-tm
+electronic work, you indicate that you have read, understand, agree to
+and accept all the terms of this license and intellectual property
+(trademark/copyright) agreement.  If you do not agree to abide by all
+the terms of this agreement, you must cease using and return or destroy
+all copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in your possession.
+If you paid a fee for obtaining a copy of or access to a Project
+Gutenberg-tm electronic work and you do not agree to be bound by the
+terms of this agreement, you may obtain a refund from the person or
+entity to whom you paid the fee as set forth in paragraph 1.E.8.
+
+1.B.  "Project Gutenberg" is a registered trademark.  It may only be
+used on or associated in any way with an electronic work by people who
+agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement.  There are a few
+things that you can do with most Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works
+even without complying with the full terms of this agreement.  See
+paragraph 1.C below.  There are a lot of things you can do with Project
+Gutenberg-tm electronic works if you follow the terms of this agreement
+and help preserve free future access to Project Gutenberg-tm electronic
+works.  See paragraph 1.E below.
+
+1.C.  The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation ("the Foundation"
+or PGLAF), owns a compilation copyright in the collection of Project
+Gutenberg-tm electronic works.  Nearly all the individual works in the
+collection are in the public domain in the United States.  If an
+individual work is in the public domain in the United States and you are
+located in the United States, we do not claim a right to prevent you from
+copying, distributing, performing, displaying or creating derivative
+works based on the work as long as all references to Project Gutenberg
+are removed.  Of course, we hope that you will support the Project
+Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting free access to electronic works by
+freely sharing Project Gutenberg-tm works in compliance with the terms of
+this agreement for keeping the Project Gutenberg-tm name associated with
+the work.  You can easily comply with the terms of this agreement by
+keeping this work in the same format with its attached full Project
+Gutenberg-tm License when you share it without charge with others.
+
+1.D.  The copyright laws of the place where you are located also govern
+what you can do with this work.  Copyright laws in most countries are in
+a constant state of change.  If you are outside the United States, check
+the laws of your country in addition to the terms of this agreement
+before downloading, copying, displaying, performing, distributing or
+creating derivative works based on this work or any other Project
+Gutenberg-tm work.  The Foundation makes no representations concerning
+the copyright status of any work in any country outside the United
+States.
+
+1.E.  Unless you have removed all references to Project Gutenberg:
+
+1.E.1.  The following sentence, with active links to, or other immediate
+access to, the full Project Gutenberg-tm License must appear prominently
+whenever any copy of a Project Gutenberg-tm work (any work on which the
+phrase "Project Gutenberg" appears, or with which the phrase "Project
+Gutenberg" is associated) is accessed, displayed, performed, viewed,
+copied or distributed:
+
+This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere at no cost and with
+almost no restrictions whatsoever.  You may copy it, give it away or
+re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included
+with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org/license
+
+1.E.2.  If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is derived
+from the public domain (does not contain a notice indicating that it is
+posted with permission of the copyright holder), the work can be copied
+and distributed to anyone in the United States without paying any fees
+or charges.  If you are redistributing or providing access to a work
+with the phrase "Project Gutenberg" associated with or appearing on the
+work, you must comply either with the requirements of paragraphs 1.E.1
+through 1.E.7 or obtain permission for the use of the work and the
+Project Gutenberg-tm trademark as set forth in paragraphs 1.E.8 or
+1.E.9.
+
+1.E.3.  If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is posted
+with the permission of the copyright holder, your use and distribution
+must comply with both paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 and any additional
+terms imposed by the copyright holder.  Additional terms will be linked
+to the Project Gutenberg-tm License for all works posted with the
+permission of the copyright holder found at the beginning of this work.
+
+1.E.4.  Do not unlink or detach or remove the full Project Gutenberg-tm
+License terms from this work, or any files containing a part of this
+work or any other work associated with Project Gutenberg-tm.
+
+1.E.5.  Do not copy, display, perform, distribute or redistribute this
+electronic work, or any part of this electronic work, without
+prominently displaying the sentence set forth in paragraph 1.E.1 with
+active links or immediate access to the full terms of the Project
+Gutenberg-tm License.
+
+1.E.6.  You may convert to and distribute this work in any binary,
+compressed, marked up, nonproprietary or proprietary form, including any
+word processing or hypertext form.  However, if you provide access to or
+distribute copies of a Project Gutenberg-tm work in a format other than
+"Plain Vanilla ASCII" or other format used in the official version
+posted on the official Project Gutenberg-tm web site (www.gutenberg.org),
+you must, at no additional cost, fee or expense to the user, provide a
+copy, a means of exporting a copy, or a means of obtaining a copy upon
+request, of the work in its original "Plain Vanilla ASCII" or other
+form.  Any alternate format must include the full Project Gutenberg-tm
+License as specified in paragraph 1.E.1.
+
+1.E.7.  Do not charge a fee for access to, viewing, displaying,
+performing, copying or distributing any Project Gutenberg-tm works
+unless you comply with paragraph 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.
+
+1.E.8.  You may charge a reasonable fee for copies of or providing
+access to or distributing Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works provided
+that
+
+- You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you derive from
+     the use of Project Gutenberg-tm works calculated using the method
+     you already use to calculate your applicable taxes.  The fee is
+     owed to the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm trademark, but he
+     has agreed to donate royalties under this paragraph to the
+     Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation.  Royalty payments
+     must be paid within 60 days following each date on which you
+     prepare (or are legally required to prepare) your periodic tax
+     returns.  Royalty payments should be clearly marked as such and
+     sent to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation at the
+     address specified in Section 4, "Information about donations to
+     the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation."
+
+- You provide a full refund of any money paid by a user who notifies
+     you in writing (or by e-mail) within 30 days of receipt that s/he
+     does not agree to the terms of the full Project Gutenberg-tm
+     License.  You must require such a user to return or
+     destroy all copies of the works possessed in a physical medium
+     and discontinue all use of and all access to other copies of
+     Project Gutenberg-tm works.
+
+- You provide, in accordance with paragraph 1.F.3, a full refund of any
+     money paid for a work or a replacement copy, if a defect in the
+     electronic work is discovered and reported to you within 90 days
+     of receipt of the work.
+
+- You comply with all other terms of this agreement for free
+     distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm works.
+
+1.E.9.  If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a Project Gutenberg-tm
+electronic work or group of works on different terms than are set
+forth in this agreement, you must obtain permission in writing from
+both the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation and Michael
+Hart, the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm trademark.  Contact the
+Foundation as set forth in Section 3 below.
+
+1.F.
+
+1.F.1.  Project Gutenberg volunteers and employees expend considerable
+effort to identify, do copyright research on, transcribe and proofread
+public domain works in creating the Project Gutenberg-tm
+collection.  Despite these efforts, Project Gutenberg-tm electronic
+works, and the medium on which they may be stored, may contain
+"Defects," such as, but not limited to, incomplete, inaccurate or
+corrupt data, transcription errors, a copyright or other intellectual
+property infringement, a defective or damaged disk or other medium, a
+computer virus, or computer codes that damage or cannot be read by
+your equipment.
+
+1.F.2.  LIMITED WARRANTY, DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES - Except for the "Right
+of Replacement or Refund" described in paragraph 1.F.3, the Project
+Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the owner of the Project
+Gutenberg-tm trademark, and any other party distributing a Project
+Gutenberg-tm electronic work under this agreement, disclaim all
+liability to you for damages, costs and expenses, including legal
+fees.  YOU AGREE THAT YOU HAVE NO REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE, STRICT
+LIABILITY, BREACH OF WARRANTY OR BREACH OF CONTRACT EXCEPT THOSE
+PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH 1.F.3.  YOU AGREE THAT THE FOUNDATION, THE
+TRADEMARK OWNER, AND ANY DISTRIBUTOR UNDER THIS AGREEMENT WILL NOT BE
+LIABLE TO YOU FOR ACTUAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE OR
+INCIDENTAL DAMAGES EVEN IF YOU GIVE NOTICE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH
+DAMAGE.
+
+1.F.3.  LIMITED RIGHT OF REPLACEMENT OR REFUND - If you discover a
+defect in this electronic work within 90 days of receiving it, you can
+receive a refund of the money (if any) you paid for it by sending a
+written explanation to the person you received the work from.  If you
+received the work on a physical medium, you must return the medium with
+your written explanation.  The person or entity that provided you with
+the defective work may elect to provide a replacement copy in lieu of a
+refund.  If you received the work electronically, the person or entity
+providing it to you may choose to give you a second opportunity to
+receive the work electronically in lieu of a refund.  If the second copy
+is also defective, you may demand a refund in writing without further
+opportunities to fix the problem.
+
+1.F.4.  Except for the limited right of replacement or refund set forth
+in paragraph 1.F.3, this work is provided to you 'AS-IS' WITH NO OTHER
+WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO
+WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PURPOSE.
+
+1.F.5.  Some states do not allow disclaimers of certain implied
+warranties or the exclusion or limitation of certain types of damages.
+If any disclaimer or limitation set forth in this agreement violates the
+law of the state applicable to this agreement, the agreement shall be
+interpreted to make the maximum disclaimer or limitation permitted by
+the applicable state law.  The invalidity or unenforceability of any
+provision of this agreement shall not void the remaining provisions.
+
+1.F.6.  INDEMNITY - You agree to indemnify and hold the Foundation, the
+trademark owner, any agent or employee of the Foundation, anyone
+providing copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in accordance
+with this agreement, and any volunteers associated with the production,
+promotion and distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works,
+harmless from all liability, costs and expenses, including legal fees,
+that arise directly or indirectly from any of the following which you do
+or cause to occur: (a) distribution of this or any Project Gutenberg-tm
+work, (b) alteration, modification, or additions or deletions to any
+Project Gutenberg-tm work, and (c) any Defect you cause.
+
+
+Section  2.  Information about the Mission of Project Gutenberg-tm
+
+Project Gutenberg-tm is synonymous with the free distribution of
+electronic works in formats readable by the widest variety of computers
+including obsolete, old, middle-aged and new computers.  It exists
+because of the efforts of hundreds of volunteers and donations from
+people in all walks of life.
+
+Volunteers and financial support to provide volunteers with the
+assistance they need, are critical to reaching Project Gutenberg-tm's
+goals and ensuring that the Project Gutenberg-tm collection will
+remain freely available for generations to come.  In 2001, the Project
+Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation was created to provide a secure
+and permanent future for Project Gutenberg-tm and future generations.
+To learn more about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation
+and how your efforts and donations can help, see Sections 3 and 4
+and the Foundation web page at http://www.pglaf.org.
+
+
+Section 3.  Information about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive
+Foundation
+
+The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation is a non profit
+501(c)(3) educational corporation organized under the laws of the
+state of Mississippi and granted tax exempt status by the Internal
+Revenue Service.  The Foundation's EIN or federal tax identification
+number is 64-6221541.  Its 501(c)(3) letter is posted at
+http://pglaf.org/fundraising.  Contributions to the Project Gutenberg
+Literary Archive Foundation are tax deductible to the full extent
+permitted by U.S. federal laws and your state's laws.
+
+The Foundation's principal office is located at 4557 Melan Dr. S.
+Fairbanks, AK, 99712., but its volunteers and employees are scattered
+throughout numerous locations.  Its business office is located at
+809 North 1500 West, Salt Lake City, UT 84116, (801) 596-1887, email
+business@pglaf.org.  Email contact links and up to date contact
+information can be found at the Foundation's web site and official
+page at http://pglaf.org
+
+For additional contact information:
+     Dr. Gregory B. Newby
+     Chief Executive and Director
+     gbnewby@pglaf.org
+
+
+Section 4.  Information about Donations to the Project Gutenberg
+Literary Archive Foundation
+
+Project Gutenberg-tm depends upon and cannot survive without wide
+spread public support and donations to carry out its mission of
+increasing the number of public domain and licensed works that can be
+freely distributed in machine readable form accessible by the widest
+array of equipment including outdated equipment.  Many small donations
+($1 to $5,000) are particularly important to maintaining tax exempt
+status with the IRS.
+
+The Foundation is committed to complying with the laws regulating
+charities and charitable donations in all 50 states of the United
+States.  Compliance requirements are not uniform and it takes a
+considerable effort, much paperwork and many fees to meet and keep up
+with these requirements.  We do not solicit donations in locations
+where we have not received written confirmation of compliance.  To
+SEND DONATIONS or determine the status of compliance for any
+particular state visit http://pglaf.org
+
+While we cannot and do not solicit contributions from states where we
+have not met the solicitation requirements, we know of no prohibition
+against accepting unsolicited donations from donors in such states who
+approach us with offers to donate.
+
+International donations are gratefully accepted, but we cannot make
+any statements concerning tax treatment of donations received from
+outside the United States.  U.S. laws alone swamp our small staff.
+
+Please check the Project Gutenberg Web pages for current donation
+methods and addresses.  Donations are accepted in a number of other
+ways including checks, online payments and credit card donations.
+To donate, please visit: http://pglaf.org/donate
+
+
+Section 5.  General Information About Project Gutenberg-tm electronic
+works.
+
+Professor Michael S. Hart is the originator of the Project Gutenberg-tm
+concept of a library of electronic works that could be freely shared
+with anyone.  For thirty years, he produced and distributed Project
+Gutenberg-tm eBooks with only a loose network of volunteer support.
+
+
+Project Gutenberg-tm eBooks are often created from several printed
+editions, all of which are confirmed as Public Domain in the U.S.
+unless a copyright notice is included.  Thus, we do not necessarily
+keep eBooks in compliance with any particular paper edition.
+
+
+Most people start at our Web site which has the main PG search facility:
+
+     http://www.gutenberg.org
+
+This Web site includes information about Project Gutenberg-tm,
+including how to make donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary
+Archive Foundation, how to help produce our new eBooks, and how to
+subscribe to our email newsletter to hear about new eBooks.
diff --git a/old/44728.zip b/old/44728.zip
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..cbe471f
--- /dev/null
+++ b/old/44728.zip