diff options
Diffstat (limited to '44728-h')
| -rw-r--r-- | 44728-h/44728-h.htm | 4199 | ||||
| -rw-r--r-- | 44728-h/images/cover.jpg | bin | 0 -> 54520 bytes | |||
| -rw-r--r-- | 44728-h/images/zill_t020.png | bin | 0 -> 4118 bytes | |||
| -rw-r--r-- | 44728-h/images/zill_t029.png | bin | 0 -> 3782 bytes | |||
| -rw-r--r-- | 44728-h/images/zill_t035a.png | bin | 0 -> 4839 bytes | |||
| -rw-r--r-- | 44728-h/images/zill_t035b.png | bin | 0 -> 4233 bytes | |||
| -rw-r--r-- | 44728-h/images/zill_t041.png | bin | 0 -> 2861 bytes |
7 files changed, 4199 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/44728-h/44728-h.htm b/44728-h/44728-h.htm new file mode 100644 index 0000000..bcab096 --- /dev/null +++ b/44728-h/44728-h.htm @@ -0,0 +1,4199 @@ +<!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> +<div>*** START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK 44728 ***</div> + +<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 & 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—I might almost say the passions—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—<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—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 & 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.—<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 8½ 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, 15½ in. by 11½ 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, +13½ in. by 8½ 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 22½ 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> + +<div>*** END OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK 44728 ***</div> +</body> +</html> diff --git a/44728-h/images/cover.jpg b/44728-h/images/cover.jpg Binary files differnew file mode 100644 index 0000000..39b2119 --- /dev/null +++ b/44728-h/images/cover.jpg diff --git a/44728-h/images/zill_t020.png b/44728-h/images/zill_t020.png Binary files differnew file mode 100644 index 0000000..88086ef --- /dev/null +++ b/44728-h/images/zill_t020.png diff --git a/44728-h/images/zill_t029.png b/44728-h/images/zill_t029.png Binary files differnew file mode 100644 index 0000000..9809633 --- /dev/null +++ b/44728-h/images/zill_t029.png diff --git a/44728-h/images/zill_t035a.png b/44728-h/images/zill_t035a.png Binary files differnew file mode 100644 index 0000000..84f734c --- /dev/null +++ b/44728-h/images/zill_t035a.png diff --git a/44728-h/images/zill_t035b.png b/44728-h/images/zill_t035b.png Binary files differnew file mode 100644 index 0000000..f7d30d5 --- /dev/null +++ b/44728-h/images/zill_t035b.png diff --git a/44728-h/images/zill_t041.png b/44728-h/images/zill_t041.png Binary files differnew file mode 100644 index 0000000..e9d103d --- /dev/null +++ b/44728-h/images/zill_t041.png |
