diff options
Diffstat (limited to 'old/44728.txt')
| -rw-r--r-- | old/44728.txt | 3445 |
1 files changed, 3445 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/old/44728.txt b/old/44728.txt new file mode 100644 index 0000000..7d1c1ff --- /dev/null +++ b/old/44728.txt @@ -0,0 +1,3445 @@ +Project Gutenberg's Kinship and Social Organisation, by W. H. R. Rivers + +This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere at no cost and with +almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or +re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included +with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org/license + + +Title: Kinship and Social Organisation + +Author: W. H. R. Rivers + +Release Date: January 22, 2014 [EBook #44728] + +Language: English + +Character set encoding: ASCII + +*** START OF THIS PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK KINSHIP AND SOCIAL ORGANISATION *** + + + + +Produced by Henry Flower and the Online Distributed +Proofreading Team at http://www.pgdp.net (This file was +produced from images generously made available by The +Internet Archive/Canadian Libraries) + + + + + + + + + + + STUDIES IN ECONOMIC AND POLITICAL SCIENCE + + Edited by the HON. W. PEMBER REEVES + + _Director of the London School of Economics and Political Science_ + + No. 36 in the Series of Monographs by Writers connected + with the London School of Economics and Political Science. + + + KINSHIP AND SOCIAL ORGANISATION + + + + + Kinship and + + Social Organisation + + + By + + W. H. R. RIVERS, M.D., F.R.S., + + Fellow of St. John's College, Cambridge + + + LONDON + CONSTABLE & CO LTD + 1914 + + + + +CONTENTS + + + PAGE + + PREFACE vii. + + LECTURE I 1 + + LECTURE II 28 + + LECTURE III 60 + + INDEX 95 + + + + +PREFACE. + + +These lectures were delivered at the London School of Economics in May +of the present year. They are largely based on experience gained in the +work of the Percy Sladen Trust Expedition to Melanesia of 1908, and +give a simplified record of social conditions which will be described +in detail in the full account of the work of that expedition. + +A few small additions and modifications have been made since the +lectures were given, some of these being due to suggestions made by +Professor Westermarck and Dr. Malinowski in the discussions which +followed the lectures. I am also indebted to Miss B. Freire-Marreco +for allowing me to refer to unpublished material collected during her +recent work among the Pueblo Indians of North America. + + W. H. R. RIVERS. + + St. John's College, + Cambridge. + _November 19th, 1913._ + + + + +KINSHIP AND SOCIAL + +ORGANISATION + + + + +LECTURE I + + +The aim of these lectures is to demonstrate the close connection which +exists between methods of denoting relationship or kinship and forms +of social organisation, including those based on different varieties +of the institution of marriage. In other words, my aim will be to show +that the terminology of relationship has been rigorously determined +by social conditions and that, if this position has been established +and accepted, systems of relationship furnish us with a most valuable +instrument in studying the history of social institutions. + +In the controversy of the present and of recent times, it is the +special mode of denoting relationship known as the classificatory +system which has formed the chief subject of discussion. It is in +connection with this system that there have arisen the various vexed +questions which have so excited the interest--I might almost say the +passions--of sociologists during the last quarter of a century. + +I am afraid it would be dangerous to assume your familiarity with this +system, and I must therefore begin with a brief description of its +main characters. The essential feature of the classificatory system, +that to which it owes its name, is the application of its terms, not +to single individual persons, but to classes of relatives which may +often be very large. Objections have been made to the use of the term +"classificatory" on the ground that our own terms of relationship also +apply to classes of persons; the term "brother," for instance, to all +the male children of the same father and mother, the term "uncle" to +all the brothers of the father and mother as well as to the husband +of an aunt, while the term "cousin" may denote a still larger class. +It is, of course, true that many of our own terms of relationship +apply to classes of persons, but in the systems to which the word +"classificatory" is usually applied, the classificatory principle +applies far more widely, and in some cases even, more logically and +consistently. In the most complete form of the classificatory system +there is not one single term of relationship the use of which tells +us that reference is being made to one person and to one person only, +whereas in our own system there are six such terms, viz., husband, +wife, father, mother, father-in-law and mother-in-law. In those systems +in which the classificatory principle is carried to its extreme degree +every term is applied to a class of persons. The term "father," for +instance, is applied to all those whom the father would call brother, +and to all the husbands of those whom the mother calls sister, +both brother and sister being used in a far wider sense than among +ourselves. In some forms of the classificatory system the term "father" +is also used for all those whom the mother would call brother, and for +all the husbands of those whom the father would call sister, and in +other systems the application of the term may be still more extensive. +Similarly, the term used for the wife may be applied to all those whom +the wife would call sister and to the wives of all those whom the +speaker calls brother, brother and sister again being used in a far +wider sense than in our own language. + +The classificatory system has many other features which mark it off +more or less sharply from our own mode of denoting relationship, but I +do not think it would be profitable to attempt a full description at +this stage of our enquiry. As I have said, the object of these lectures +is to show how the various features of the classificatory system have +arisen out of, and can therefore be explained historically by, social +facts. If you are not already acquainted with these features, you will +learn to know them the more easily if at the same time you learn how +they have come into existence. + +I will begin with a brief history of the subject. So long as it was +supposed that all the peoples of the world denoted relationship in the +same way, namely, that which is customary among ourselves, there was +no problem. There was no reason why the subject should have awakened +any interest, and so far as I have been able to find, it is only since +the discovery of the classificatory system of relationship that the +problem now before us was ever raised. I imagine that, if students ever +thought about the matter at all, it must have seemed obvious that the +way in which they and the other known peoples of the world used terms +of relationship was conditioned and determined by the social relations +which the terms denoted. + +The state of affairs became very different as soon as it was known that +many peoples of the world use terms of relationship in a manner, and +according to rules, so widely different from our own that they seem to +belong to an altogether different order, a difference well illustrated +by the confusion which is apt to arise when we use English words in +the translation of classificatory terms or classificatory terms as the +equivalents of our own. The difficulty or impossibility of conforming +to complete truth and reality, when we attempt this task, is the best +witness to the fundamental difference between the two modes of denoting +relationship. + +I do not know of any discovery in the whole range of science which +can be more certainly put to the credit of one man than that of the +classificatory system of relationship by Lewis Morgan. By this I mean, +not merely that he was the first to point out clearly the existence of +this mode of denoting relationship, but that it was he who collected +the vast mass of material by which the essential characters of the +system were demonstrated, and it was he who was the first to recognise +the great theoretical importance of his new discovery. It is the denial +of this importance by his contemporaries and successors which furnishes +the best proof of the credit which is due to him for the discovery. +The very extent of the material he collected[1] has probably done much +to obstruct the recognition of the importance of his work. It is a +somewhat discouraging thought that, if Morgan had been less industrious +and had amassed a smaller collection of material which could have been +embodied in a more available form, the value of his work would probably +have been far more widely recognised than it is to-day. The volume +of his material is, however, only a subsidiary factor in the process +which has led to the neglect or rejection of the importance of Morgan's +discovery. The chief cause of the neglect is one for which Morgan must +himself largely bear the blame. He was not content to demonstrate, as +he might to some extent have done from his own material, the close +connection between the terminology of the classificatory system of +relationship and forms of social organisation. There can be little +doubt that he recognised this connection, but he was not content to +demonstrate the dependence of the terminology of relationship upon +social forms the existence of which was already known, or which were +capable of demonstration with the material at his disposal. He passed +over all these early stages of the argument, and proceeded directly to +refer the origin of the terminology to forms of social organisation +which were not known to exist anywhere on the earth and of which there +was no direct evidence in the past. When, further, the social condition +which Morgan was led to formulate was one of general promiscuity +developing into group-marriage, conditions bitterly repugnant to the +sentiments of most civilised persons, it is not surprising that he +aroused a mass of heated opposition which led, not merely to widespread +rejection of his views, but also to the neglect of lessons to be learnt +from his new discovery which must have received general recognition +long before this, if they had not been obscured by other issues. + +[1] _Systems of Consanguinity and Affinity of the Human Family: +Smithsonian Contributions to Knowledge_, vol. xvii.; Washington, 1871. + +The first to take up the cudgels in opposition to Morgan was our own +pioneer in the study of the early forms of human society, John Ferguson +McLennan.[2] He criticised the views of Morgan severely and often +justly, and then pointing out, as was then believed to be the case, +that no duties or rights were connected with the relationships of the +classificatory system, he concluded that the terms formed merely a +code of courtesies and ceremonial addresses for social intercourse. +Those who have followed him have usually been content to repeat the +conclusion that the classificatory system is nothing more than a +body of mutual salutations and terms of address. They have failed to +see that it still remains necessary to explain how the terms of the +classificatory system came to be used in mutual salutation. They have +failed to recognise that they were either rejecting the principle of +determinism in sociology, or were only putting back to a conveniently +remote distance the consideration of the problem how and why the +classificatory terms came to be used in the way now customary among so +many peoples of the earth. + +[2] _Studies in Ancient History_, 1st series, 1876, p. 331. + +This aspect of the problem, which has been neglected or put on one +side by the followers of McLennan, was not so treated by McLennan +himself. As we should expect from the general character of his work, +McLennan clearly recognised that the classificatory system must have +been determined by social conditions, and he tried to show how it might +have arisen as the result of the change from the Nair to the Tibetan +form of polyandry.[3] He even went so far as to formulate varieties +of this process by means of which there might have been produced the +chief varieties of the classificatory system, the existence of which +had been demonstrated by Morgan. It is quite clear that McLennan had no +doubts about the necessity of tracing back the social institution of +the classificatory system of relationship to social causes, a necessity +which has been ignored or even explicitly denied by those who have +followed him in rejecting the views of Morgan. It is one of the many +unfortunate consequences of McLennan's belief in the importance of +polyandry in the history of human society that it has helped to prevent +his followers from seeing the social importance of the classificatory +system. They have failed to see that the classificatory system may be +the result neither of promiscuity nor of polyandry, and yet have been +determined, both in its general character and in its details, by forms +of social organisation. + +[3] _Op. cit._, p. 373. + +Since the time of Morgan and McLennan few have attempted to deal with +the question in any comprehensive manner. The problem has inevitably +been involved in the controversy which has raged between the advocates +of the original promiscuity or the primitive monogamy of mankind, +but most of the former have been ready to accept Morgan's views +blindly, while the latter have been content to try to explain away +the importance of conclusions derived from the classificatory system +without attempting any real study of the evidence. On the side of +Morgan there has been one exception in the person of Professor J. +Kohler,[4] who has recognised the lines on which the problem must be +studied, while on the other side there has been, so far as I am aware, +only one writer who has recognised that the evidence from the nature +of the classificatory system of relationship cannot be ignored or +belittled, but must be faced and some explanation alternative to that +of Morgan provided. + +[4] _Zur Urgeschichte der Ehe_, Stuttgart, 1897 (reprinted from +_Zeitsch. f. vergleich. Rechtswiss._, 1897, xii., 187). + +This attempt was made four years ago by Professor Kroeber,[5] of the +University of California. The line he takes is absolutely to reject +the view common to both Morgan and McLennan that the nature of the +classificatory system has been determined by social conditions. +He explicitly rejects the view that the mode of using terms of +relationship depends on social causes, and puts forward as the +alternative that they are conditioned by causes purely linguistic and +psychological. + +[5] _Journ. Roy. Anth. Inst._, 1909, xxxix, 77. + +It is not quite easy to understand what is meant by the linguistic +causation of terms of relationship. In the summary at the end of +his paper Kroeber concludes that "they (terms of relationship) are +determined primarily by language." Terms of relationship, however, are +elements of language, so that Kroeber's proposition is that elements +of language are determined primarily by language. In so far as this +proposition has any meaning, it must be that, in the process of seeking +the origin of linguistic phenomena, it is our business to ignore any +but linguistic facts. It would follow that the student of the subject +should seek the antecedents of linguistic phenomena in other linguistic +phenomena, and put on one side as not germane to his task all reference +to the objects and relations which the words denote and connote. + +Professor Kroeber's alternative proposition is that terms of +relationship reflect psychology, not sociology, or, in other words, +that the way in which terms of relationship are used depends on a +chain of causation in which psychological processes are the direct +antecedents of this use. I will try to make his meaning clear by means +of an instance which he himself gives. He says that at the present time +there is a tendency among ourselves to speak of the brother-in-law as +a brother; in other words, we tend to class the brother-in-law and the +brother together in the nomenclature of our own system of relationship. +He supposes that we do this because there is a psychological similarity +between the two relationships which leads us to class them together in +our customary nomenclature. I shall return both to this and other of +his examples later. + +We have now seen that the opponents of Morgan have taken up two main +positions which it is possible to attack: one, that the classificatory +system is nothing more than a body of terms of address; the other, +that it and other modes of denoting relationship are determined by +psychological and not by sociological causes. I propose to consider +these two positions in turn. + +Morgan himself was evidently deeply impressed by the function of the +classificatory system of relationship as a body of salutations. His +own experience was derived from the North American Indians, and he +notes the exclusive use of terms of relationship in address, a usage +so habitual that an omission to recognise a relative in this manner +would amount almost to an affront. Morgan also points out, as one +motive for the custom, the presence of a reluctance to utter personal +names. McLennan had to rely entirely on the evidence collected by +Morgan, and there can be no doubt that he was greatly influenced by +the stress Morgan himself laid on the function of the classificatory +terms as mutual salutations. That in rude societies certain relatives +have social functions definitely assigned to them by custom was +known in Morgan's time, and I think it might even then have been +discovered that the relationships which carried these functions were +of the classificatory kind. It is, however, only by more recent work, +beginning with that of Howitt, of Spencer and Gillen, and of Roth +in Australia, and of the Cambridge Expedition to Torres Straits, +that the great importance of the functions of relatives through +the classificatory system has been forced upon the attention of +sociologists. The social and ceremonial proceedings of the Australian +aborigines abound in features in which special functions are performed +by such relatives as the elder brother or the brother of the mother, +while in Torres Straits I was able to record large groups of duties, +privileges and restrictions associated with different classificatory +relationships. + +Further work has shown that widely, though not universally, the +nomenclature of the classificatory system carries with it a number of +clearly defined social practices. One who applies a given term of +relationship to another person has to behave towards that person in +certain definite ways. He has to perform certain duties towards him, +and enjoys certain privileges, and is subject to certain restrictions +in his conduct in relation to him. These duties, privileges and +restrictions vary greatly in number among different peoples, but +wherever they exist, I know of no exception to their importance and +to the regard in which they are held by all members of the community. +You doubtless know of many examples of such functions associated with +relationship, and I need give only one example. + +In the Banks Islands the term used between two brothers-in-law is +_wulus_, _walus_, or _walui_, and a man who applies one of these terms +to another may not utter his name, nor may the two behave familiarly +towards one another in any way. In one island, Merlav, these relatives +have all their possessions in common, and it is the duty of one to +help the other in any difficulty, to warn him in danger, and, if need +be, to die with him. If one dies, the other has to help to support +his widow and has to abstain from certain foods. Further, there are +a number of curious regulations in which the sanctity of the head +plays a great part. A man must take nothing from above the head of his +brother-in-law, nor may he even eat a bird which has flown over his +head. A person has only to say of an object "That is the head of your +brother-in-law," and the person addressed will have to desist from the +use of the object. If the object is edible, it may not be eaten; if it +is one which is being manufactured, such as a mat, the person addressed +will have to cease from his work if the object be thus called the head +of his brother-in-law. He will only be allowed to finish it on making +compensation, not to the person who has prevented the work by reference +to the head, but to the brother-in-law whose head had been mentioned. +Ludicrous as some of these customs may seem to us, they are very far +from being so to those who practise them. They show clearly the very +important part taken in the lives of those who use the classificatory +system by the social functions associated with relationship. As I +have said, these functions are not universally associated with the +classificatory system, but they are very general in many parts of the +world and only need more careful investigation to be found even more +general and more important than appears at present. + +Let us now look at our own system of relationship from this point +of view. Two striking features present themselves. First, the great +paucity of definite social functions associated with relationship, +and secondly, the almost complete limitation of such functions to +those relationships which apply only to individual persons and not +to classes of persons. Of such relationships as cousin, uncle, aunt, +father-in-law, or mother-in-law there may be said to be no definite +social functions. A school-boy believes it is the duty of his uncle +to tip him, but this is about as near as one can get to any social +obligation on the part of this relative. + +The same will be found to hold good to a large extent if we turn to +those social regulations which have been embodied in our laws. It is +only in the case of the transmission of hereditary rank and of the +property of a person dying intestate that more distant relatives are +brought into any legal relationship with one another, and then only +if there is an absence of nearer relatives. It is only when forced to +do so by exceptional circumstances that the law recognises any of the +persons to whom the more classificatory of our terms of relationship +apply. If we pay regard to the social functions associated with +relationship, it is our own system, rather than the classificatory, +which is open to the reproach that its relationships carry into them no +rights and duties. + +In the course of the recent work of the Percy Sladen Trust Expedition +in Melanesia and Polynesia I have been able to collect a body of facts +which bring out, even more clearly than has hitherto been recognised, +the dependence of classificatory terms on social rights.[6] The +classificatory systems of Oceania vary greatly in character. In some +places relationships are definitely distinguished in nomenclature +which are classed with other relationships elsewhere. Thus, while +most Melanesian and some Polynesian systems have a definite term for +the mother's brother and for the class of relatives whom the mother +calls brother, in other systems this relative is classed with, and +is denoted by, the same term as the father. The point to which I now +call your attention is that there is a very close correlation between +the presence of a special term for this relative and the presence of +special functions attached to the relationship. + +[6] The full account of these and other facts cited in these lectures +will appear shortly in a work on _The History of Melanesian Society_, +to be published by the Cambridge University Press. + +In Polynesia, both the Hawaiians and the inhabitants of Niue class the +mother's brother with the father, and in neither place was I able to +discover that there were any special duties, privileges or restrictions +ascribed to the mother's brother. In the Polynesian islands of Tonga +and Tikopia, on the other hand, where there are special terms for +the mother's brother, this relative has also special functions. The +only place in Melanesia where I failed to find a special term for the +mother's brother was in the western Solomon Islands, and that was +also the only part of Melanesia where I failed to find any trace of +special social functions ascribed to this relative. I do not know of +such functions in Santa Cruz, but my information about the system of +that island is derived from others, and further research will almost +certainly show that they are present. + +In my own experience, then, among two different peoples, I have been +able to establish a definite correlation between the presence of +a term of relationship and special functions associated with the +relationship. Information kindly given to me by Father Egidi, however, +seems to show that the correlation among the Melanesians is not +complete. In Mekeo, the mother's brother has the duty of putting on the +first perineal garment of his nephew, but he has no special term and is +classed with the father. Among the Kuni, on the other hand, there is +a definite term for the mother's brother distinguishing him from the +father, but yet he has not, so far as Father Egidi knows, any special +functions. + +Both in Melanesia and Polynesia a similar correlation comes out in +connection with other relationships, the most prominent exception +being the absence of a special term for the father's sister in the +Banks Islands, although this relative has very definite and important +functions. In these islands the father's sister is classed with the +mother as _vev_ or _veve_, but even here, where the generalisation +seems to break down, it does not do so completely, for the father's +sister is distinguished from the mother as _veve vus rawe_, the mother +who kills a pig, as opposed to the simple _veve_ used for the mother +and her sisters. + +There is thus definite evidence, not only for the association of +classificatory terms of relationship with special social functions, but +from one part of the world we now have evidence which shows that the +presence or absence of special terms is largely dependent on whether +there are or are not such functions. We may take it as established that +the terms of the classificatory system are not, as McLennan supposed, +merely terms of address and modes of mutual salutation. McLennan came +to this conclusion because he believed that the classificatory terms +were associated with no such functions as those of which we now have +abundant evidence. He asks, "What duties or rights are affected by the +relationships comprised in the classificatory system?" and answers +himself according to the knowledge at his disposal, "Absolutely +none."[7] This passage makes it clear that, if McLennan had known what +we know to-day, he would never have taken up the line of attack upon +Morgan's position in which he has had, and still has, so many followers. + +[7] _Op. cit._, p. 366. + + * * * * * + +I can now turn to the second line of attack, that which boldly discards +the origin of the terminology of relationship in social conditions, and +seeks for its explanation in psychology. The line of argument I propose +to follow is first to show that many details of classificatory systems +have been directly determined by social factors. If that task can be +accomplished, we shall have firm ground from which to take off in the +attempt to refer the general characters of the classificatory and other +systems of relationship to forms of social organisation. Any complete +theory of a social institution has not only to account for its general +characters, but also for its details, and I propose to begin with the +details. + +I must first return to the history of the subject, and stay for a +moment to ask why the line of argument I propose to follow was not +adopted by Morgan and has been so largely disregarded by others. + +Whenever a new phenomenon is discovered in any part of the world, there +is a natural tendency to seek for its parallels elsewhere. Morgan lived +at a time when the unity of human culture was a topic which greatly +excited ethnologists, and it is evident that one of his chief interests +in the new discovery arose from the possibility it seemed to open of +showing the uniformity of human culture. He hoped to demonstrate the +uniformity of the classificatory system throughout the world, and he +was content to observe certain broad varieties of the system and refer +them to supposed stages in the history of human society. He paid but +little attention to such varieties of the classificatory system as are +illustrated in his own record of North American systems, and seems to +have overlooked entirely certain features of the Indian and Oceanic +systems he recorded, which might have enabled him to demonstrate the +close relation between the terminology of relationship and social +institutions. Morgan's neglect to attend to these differences must +be ascribed in some measure to the ignorance of rude forms of social +organisation which existed when he wrote, but the failure of others +to recognise the dependence of the details of classificatory systems +upon social institutions is rather to be ascribed to the absence +of interest in the subject induced by their adherence to McLennan's +primary error. Those who believe that the classificatory system is +merely an unimportant code of mutual salutations are not likely to +attend to relatively minute differences in the customs they despise. +The credit of having been the first fully to recognise the social +importance of these differences belongs to J. Kohler. In his book "Zur +Urgeschichte der Ehe," which I have already mentioned, he studied +minutely the details of many different systems, and showed that they +could be explained by certain forms of marriage practised by those who +use the terms. I propose now to deal with classificatory terminology +from this point of view. My procedure will be first to show that +the details which distinguish different forms of the classificatory +system from one another have been directly determined by the social +institutions of those who use the systems, and only when this has been +established, shall I attempt to bring the more general characters +of the classificatory and other systems into relation with social +institutions. + +I am able to carry out this task more fully than has hitherto been +possible because I have collected in Melanesia a number of systems of +relationship which differ far more widely from one another than those +recorded in Morgan's book or others which have been collected since. +Some of the features which characterise these Melanesian systems will +be wholly new to ethnologists, not having yet been recorded elsewhere, +but I propose to begin with a long familiar mode of terminology which +accompanies that widely distributed custom known as the cross-cousin +marriage. In the more frequent form of this marriage a man marries the +daughter either of his mother's brother or of his father's sister; more +rarely his choice is limited to one of these relatives. + +Such a marriage will have certain definite consequences. Let us take a +case in which a man marries the daughter of his mother's brother, as is +represented in the following diagram: + +[Illustration: DIAGRAM 1[8] + +[8] In this and other diagrams capital letters are used to represent +men and the smaller letters women. + + +----------------------------+ + | | + B = a A = b + | | + | +----------+----------+ + | | | | + C =================== d E f +] + +One consequence of the marriage between _C_ and _d_ will be that _A_, +who before the marriage of _C_ was only his mother's brother, now +becomes also his wife's father, while _b_, who before the marriage was +the mother's brother's wife of _C_, now becomes his wife's mother. +Reciprocally, _C_, who before his marriage had been the sister's +son of _A_ and the husband's sister's son of _b_, now becomes their +son-in-law. Further, _E_ and _f_, the other children of _A_ and _b_, +who before the marriage had been only the cousins of _C_, now become +his wife's brother and sister. + +Similarly, _a_, who before the marriage of _d_ was her father's sister, +now becomes also her husband's mother, and _B_, her father's sister's +husband, comes to stand in the relation of husband's father; if _C_ +should have any brothers and sisters, these cousins now become her +brothers- and sisters-in-law. + +The combinations of relationship which follow from the marriage of a +man with the daughter of his mother's brother thus differ for a man and +a woman, but if, as is usual, a man may marry the daughter either of +his mother's brother or of his father's sister, these combinations of +relationship will hold good for both men and women. + +Another and more remote consequence of the cross-cousin marriage, if +this become an established institution, is that the relationships +of mother's brother and father's sister's husband will come to be +combined in one and the same person, and that there will be a similar +combination of the relationships of father's sister and mother's +brother's wife. If the cross-cousin marriage be the habitual custom, +_B_ and _b_ in Diagram 1 will be brother and sister; in consequence +_A_ will be at once the mother's brother and the father's sister's +husband of _C_, while _b_ will be both his father's sister and his +mother's brother's wife. Since, however, the mother's brother is also +the father-in-law, and the father's sister the mother-in-law, three +different relationships will be combined in each case. Through the +cross-cousin marriage the relationships of mother's brother, father's +sister's husband and father-in-law will be combined in one and the same +person, and the relationships of father's sister, mother's brother's +wife and mother-in-law will be similarly combined. + +In many places where we know the cross-cousin marriage to be an +established institution, we find just those common designations which I +have just described. Thus, in the Mbau dialect of Fiji the word _vungo_ +is applied to the mother's brother, the husband of the father's sister +and the father-in-law. The word _nganei_ is used for the father's +sister, the mother's brother's wife and the mother-in-law. The term +_tavale_ is used by a man for the son of the mother's brother or of +the father's sister as well as for the wife's brother and the sister's +husband. _Ndavola_ is used not only for the child of the mother's +brother or father's sister when differing in sex from the speaker, but +this word is also used by a man for his wife's sister and his brother's +wife, and by a woman for her husband's brother and her sister's +husband. Every one of these details of the Mbau system is the direct +and inevitable consequence of the cross-cousin marriage, if it become +an established and habitual practice. + +This Fijian system does not stand alone in Melanesia. In the southern +islands of the New Hebrides, in Tanna, Eromanga, Anaiteum and +Aniwa, the cross-cousin marriage is practised and their systems of +relationship have features similar to those of Fiji. Thus, in Anaiteum +the word _matak_ applies to the mother's brother, the father's sister's +husband and the father-in-law, while the word _engak_ used for the +cross-cousin is not only used for the wife's sister and the brother's +wife, but also for the wife herself. + +Again, in the island of Guadalcanar in the Solomons the system of +relationship is just such as would result from the cross-cousin +marriage. One term, _nia_, is used for the mother's brother and the +wife's father, and probably also for the father's sister's husband and +the husband's father, though my stay in the island was not long enough +to enable me to collect sufficient genealogical material to demonstrate +these points completely. Similarly, _tarunga_ includes in its +connotation the father's sister, the mother's brother's wife and the +wife's mother, and probably also the husband's mother, while the word +_iva_ is used for both cross-cousins and brothers- and sisters-in-law. +Corresponding to this terminology there seemed to be no doubt that it +was the custom for a man to marry the daughter of his mother's brother +or his father's sister, though I was not able to demonstrate this form +of marriage genealogically. + +These three regions, Fiji, the southern New Hebrides and Guadalcanar, +are the only parts of Melanesia included in my survey where I found the +practice of the cross-cousin marriage, and in all three regions the +systems of relationship are just such as would follow from this form of +marriage. + +Let us now turn to inquire how far it is possible to explain these +features of Melanesian systems of relationship by psychological +similarity. If it were not for the cross-cousin marriage, what +can there be to give the mother's brother a greater psychological +similarity to the father-in-law than the father's brother, or the +father's sister a greater similarity to the mother-in-law than the +mother's sister? Why should it be two special kinds of cousin who are +classed with two special kinds of brother- and sister-in-law or with +the husband or wife? Once granted the presence of the cross-cousin +marriage, and there are psychological similarities certainly, though +even here the matter is not quite straightforward from the point of +view of the believer in their importance, for we have to do not merely +with the similarity of two relatives, but with their identity, with +the combination of two or more relationships in one and the same +person. Even if we put this on one side, however, it remains to ask +how it is possible to say that terms of relationship do not reflect +sociology, if such psychological similarities are themselves the +result of the cross-cousin marriage? What point is there in bringing +in hypothetical psychological similarities which are only at the best +intermediate links in the chain of causation connecting the terminology +of relationship with antecedent social conditions? + +If you concede the causal relation between the characteristic features +of a Fijian or Anaiteum or Guadalcanar system and the cross-cousin +marriage, there can be no question that it is the cross-cousin marriage +which is the antecedent and the features of the system of relationship +the consequences. I do not suppose that, even in this subject, there +will be found anyone to claim that the Fijians took to marrying their +cross-cousins because such a marriage was suggested to them by the +nature of their system of relationship. We have to do in this case, +not merely with one or two features which might be the consequence of +the cross-cousin marriage, but with a large and complicated meshwork +of resemblances and differences in the nomenclature of relationship, +each and every element of which follows directly from such a marriage, +while no one of the systems I have considered possesses a single +feature which is not compatible with social conditions arising out of +this marriage. Apart from quantitative verification, I doubt whether it +would be possible in the whole range of science to find a case where +we can be more confident that one phenomenon has been conditioned by +another. I feel almost guilty of wasting your time by going into it +so fully, and should hardly have ventured to do so if this case of +social causation had not been explicitly denied by one with so high a +reputation as Professor Kroeber. I hope, however, that the argument +will be useful as an example of the method I shall apply to other cases +in which the evidence is less conclusive. + +The features of terminology which follow from the cross-cousin +marriage were known to Morgan, being present in three of the systems +he recorded from Southern India and in the Fijian system collected +for him by Mr. Fison. The earliest reference[9] to the cross-cousin +marriage which I have been able to discover is among the Gonds of +Central India. This marriage was recorded in 1870, which, though +earlier than the appearance of Morgan's book, was after it had been +accepted for publication, so that I think we can be confident that +Morgan was unacquainted with the form of marriage which would have +explained the peculiar features of the Indian and Fijian systems. It is +evident, however, that Morgan was so absorbed in his demonstration of +the similarity of these systems to those of America that he paid but +little, if any, attention to their peculiarities. He thus lost a great +opportunity; if he had attended to these peculiarities and had seen +their meaning, he might have predicted a form of marriage which would +soon afterwards have been independently discovered. Such an example of +successful prediction would have forced the social significance of the +terminology of relationship upon the attention of students in such a +way that we should have been spared much of the controversy which has +so long obstructed progress in this branch of sociology. It must at the +very least have acted as a stimulus to the collection of systems of +relationship. It would hardly have been possible that now, more than +forty years after the appearance of Morgan's book, we are still in +complete ignorance of the terminology of relationship of many peoples +about whom volumes have been written. It would seem impossible, for +instance, that our knowledge of Indian systems of relationship could +have been what it is to-day. India would have been the country in which +the success of Morgan's prediction would first have shown itself, and +such an event must have prevented the almost total neglect which the +subject of relationship has suffered at the hands of students of Indian +sociology. + +[9] Grant, _Gazetteer of Central Provinces_, Nagpur, 2nd ed., 1870, p. +276. + + + + +LECTURE II + + +In my last lecture I began the demonstration of the dependence of the +classificatory terminology of relationship upon social institutions by +showing how a number of terms used in several parts of Melanesia have +been determined by the cross-cousin marriage. I showed that in places +where the cross-cousin marriage is practised there are not merely one +or two, but large groups of, terms of relationship which are exactly +such as would follow from this form of marriage. To-day I begin by +considering other forms of Melanesian marriage which bring out almost +as clearly and conclusively the dependence of the classificatory +terminology upon social conditions. + +The systems of relationship of the Banks Islands possess certain very +remarkable features which were first recorded by Dr. Codrington.[10] +Put very shortly, it may be stated that cross-cousins stand to one +another in the relation of parent and child, or, more exactly, +cross-cousins apply to one another terms of relationship which are +otherwise used between parents and children. A man applies to his +mother's brother's children the term which he otherwise uses for +his own children, and, conversely, a person applies to his father's +sister's son a term he otherwise uses for his father. Thus, in the +following diagram, _C_ will apply to _D_ and _e_ the terms which are in +general use for a son and daughter, while _D_ and _e_ will apply to _C_ +the term they otherwise use for their father. + +[10] _The Melanesians_, p. 38. + +[Illustration: DIAGRAM 2. + + +----------------------------+ + | | + B = a A = b + | | + | +----------+----------+ + | | | + C D e +] + +In most forms of the classificatory system members of different +generations are denoted in wholly different ways and belong to +different classes,[11] but here we have a case in which persons of the +same generation as the speaker are classed with those of an older or a +younger generation. + +[11] I leave out of account here those cases in which members of +different generations are denoted by a reciprocal term. + +I will first ask you to consider to what kind of psychological +similarity such a practice can be due. What kind of psychological +similarity can there be between one special kind of cousin and the +father, and between another special kind of cousin and a son or +daughter? If the puzzle as put in this form does not seem capable of a +satisfactory answer, let us turn to see if the Banks Islanders practise +any social custom to which this peculiar terminology can have been due. +In the story of Ganviviris told to Dr. Codrington in these islands[12] +an incident occurs in which a man hands over one of his wives to his +sister's son, or, in other words, in which a man marries one of the +wives of his mother's brother. Inquiries showed, not only that this +form of marriage was once widely current in the islands, but that it +still persists though in a modified form. The Christianity of the +natives does not now permit a man to have superfluous wives whom he can +pass on to his sister's sons, but it is still the orthodox, and indeed +I was told the popular, custom to marry the widow of the mother's +brother. It seemed that in the old days a man would take the widow of +his mother's brother in addition to any wife or wives he might already +have. Though this is no longer allowed, the leaning towards this form +of marriage is so strong that after fifty years of external influence +a young man still marries the widow of his mother's brother, sometimes +in preference to a girl of his own age. Indeed, there was reason to +believe that there was an obligation to do so, if the deceased husband +had a nephew who was not yet married. The peculiar features of the +terminology of relationship in these islands are exactly such as would +follow from this form of marriage. If, in Diagram 2, _C_ marries _b_, +the wife or widow of his mother's brother, and thereby comes to occupy +the social position of his uncle _A_, the children of the uncle, _D_ +and _e_, will come to stand to him in the relation of children, while +he, who had previously been the father's sister's son of _D_ and _e_, +will now become their father. An exceptional form of the classificatory +system, in which there is a departure from the usual rule limiting a +term of relationship to members of the same generation, is found to +be the natural consequence of a social regulation which enjoins the +marriage of persons belonging to different generations. + +[12] _Op. cit._, p. 384. + +The next step in the process of demonstrating the social significance +of the classificatory system of relationship will take us to the +island of Pentecost in the northern New Hebrides. When I recorded +the system of this island, I found it to have so bizarre and complex +a character that I could hardly believe at first it could be other +than the result of a ludicrous misunderstanding between myself and my +seemingly intelligent and trustworthy informants. Nevertheless, the +records obtained from two independent witnesses, and based on separate +pedigrees, agreed so closely even in the details which seemed most +improbable that I felt confident that the whole construction could not +be so mad as it seemed. This confidence was strengthened by finding +that some of its features were of the same order of peculiarity as +others which I had already found in a set of Fijian systems I have +yet to consider. There were certain features which brought relatives +separated by two generations into one category; the mother's mother, +for instance, received the same designation as the elder sister; the +wife's mother the same as the daughter; the wife's brother the same as +the daughter's son. The only conclusion I was then able to formulate +was that these features were the result of some social institution +resembling the matrimonial classes of Australia, which would have the +effect of putting persons of alternate generations into one social +category. + +This idea was supported by the system of relationship of the Dieri of +Australia which possesses at least one feature similar to those of +Pentecost, a fact I happened to remember at the time because Mr. N. +W. Thomas[13] had used it as the basis of a _reductio ad absurdum_ +argument to show that terms of relationship do not express kinship. +The interest of the Pentecost system seemed at first to lie in the +possibility thus opened of bringing Melanesian into relation with +Australian sociology, a hope which was the more promising in that the +people of Pentecost and the Dieri resemble one another in the general +character of their social organisation, each being organised on the +dual basis with matrilineal descent. When in Pentecost, however, I was +unable to get further than this, and the details of the system remained +wholly inexplicable. + +[13] _Kinship Organisations and Group Marriage in Australia_, +Cambridge, 1906, p. 123. + +The meaning of some of the peculiarities of the Pentecost system +became clear when I reached the Banks Islands; they were of the same +kind as those I have already considered as characteristic of these +islands. When I had discovered the dependence of these features upon +the marriage of a man with the wife of his mother's brother, it +became evident that not only these, but certain other features of +the Pentecost system, were capable of being accounted for by this +kind of marriage. The peculiar features of the Pentecost system could +be divided into two groups, and all the members of one group could +be accounted for by the marriage with the mother's brother's wife. +All these features had the character in common that persons of the +generation immediately above or below that of the speaker were classed +in nomenclature with relatives of the same generation. + +The other group consisted of terms in which persons two generations +apart were classed with relatives of the same generation. Since the +first group of correspondences had been explained by a marriage between +persons one generation apart, it should have been obvious that the +classing together of persons two generations apart might have been +the result of marriage between persons two generations apart. The +idea of a society in which marriages between those having the status +of grandparents and grandchildren were habitual must have seemed +so unlikely that, if it entered my mind at all, it must have been +at once dismissed. The clue only came later from a man named John +Pantutun, a native of the Banks Islands, who had been a teacher in +Pentecost. In talking to me he often mentioned in a most instructive +manner resemblances and differences between the customs of his own +island and those he had observed in Pentecost. One day he let fall +the observation with just such a manner as that in which we so often +accuse neighbouring nations of ridiculous or disgusting practices, "O! +Raga![14] That is the place where they marry their granddaughters." I +saw at once that he had given me a possible explanation of the peculiar +features of the system of the island. By that time I had forgotten +the details of the Pentecost system, and it occurred to me that it +would be interesting, not immediately to consult my note-books, but +to endeavour to construct a system of relationship which would be the +result of marriage with a granddaughter, and then to see how far my +theoretical construction agreed with the terminology I had recorded. +The first question which arose was with which kind of granddaughter +the marriage had been practised, with the son's daughter or with the +daughter's daughter, and this was a question readily answered by means +of a consideration arising out of the nature of the social organisation +of Pentecost. + +[14] This is the Mota name for Pentecost Island. + +The society of this island is organised on the dual basis with +matrilineal descent in which a man must marry a woman of the opposite +moiety. Diagram 3, in which _A_ and _a_ stand for men and women of +one moiety, and _B_ and _b_ for those of the other moiety, shows that +a marriage between a man and his son's daughter would be out of the +question, for it would be a case of _A_ marrying _a_. It was evident +that the marriage, the consequences of which I had to formulate, must +have been one in which a man married his daughter's daughter. + +[Illustration: DIAGRAM 3. + + A = b + | + | + +-------------+-------------+ + | | + B = a A = b + | | + +------+------+ +-------+-------+ + | | | | + A a B b +] + +It would take too long to go through the whole set of relationships, +and I choose only a few examples which I illustrate by the following +diagram: + +[Illustration: DIAGRAM 4. + + A = b + | + | + D = c + | + | + +-------+-------+ + | | | + e F f +] + +This diagram shows that if _A_ marries _e_, _c_, who previous to the +marriage had been only the daughter of _A_, now becomes also his wife's +mother; and _D_, who had previously been his daughter's husband, now +becomes his wife's father. Similarly, _F_, who before the new marriage +was the daughter's son of _A_, now becomes the brother of his wife, +while _f_, his daughter's daughter, becomes his wife's sister. Lastly, +if we assume that it would be the elder daughters of the daughter who +would be married by their grandfathers, _e_, who before the marriage +had been the elder sister of _F_ and _f_, now comes through her +marriage to occupy the position of their mother's mother. + +When, after making these deductions, I examined my record of the +Pentecost terms, I found that its terminology corresponded exactly with +those which had been deduced. The wife's mother and the daughter were +both called _nitu_. The daughter's husband and the wife's father were +both _bwaliga_. The daughter's children were called _mabi_, and this +term was also used for the brother and sister of the wife. Lastly, the +mother's mother was found to be classed with the elder sister, both +being called _tuaga_. + +For the sake of simplicity of demonstration I have assumed that a man +marries his own daughter's daughter, but through the classificatory +principle all the features I have described would follow equally well +if a man married the granddaughter of his brother, either in the narrow +or the classificatory sense. There was one correspondence, according +to which both the husband's brother and the mother's father were +called _sibi_, which does not follow from the marriage with the own +granddaughter, but would be the natural result of marriage with the +daughter's daughter of the brother--_i.e._, with a marriage in which +_e_ was married by _A's_ brother. + +I hope these examples will be sufficient to show how a number of +features which might otherwise seem so absurd as to suggest a system of +relationship gone mad become natural and intelligible, even obvious, +if it were once the established practice of the people to marry the +daughter's daughter of the brother. + +Such inquiries as I was able to make confirmed the conclusion that the +Pentecost marriage was with the granddaughter of the brother rather +than with the daughter of the daughter herself. After I had been put +on the track of the explanation by John Pantutun I had the chance of +talking to only one native of Pentecost, unfortunately not a very +good informant. From his evidence it appeared that the marriage I had +inferred from the system of relationship even now occurs in the island, +but only with the granddaughter of the brother, and that marriage with +the own granddaughter is forbidden. The evidence is not as complete as +I should like, but it points to the actual existence in the island of a +peculiar form of marriage from which the extraordinary features of its +system of relationship directly follow. + +When I returned to England I found that this marriage was not unique, +but had been recorded among the Dieri of Australia,[15] where, as I +have already mentioned, it is associated with peculiar features of +nomenclature resembling those of Pentecost. + +[15] Howitt, _Native Tribes of South-East Australia_, pp. 164, 177. + +I must again ask, how are you going to explain the features of the +Pentecost system psychologically? What psychological resemblance is +there between a grandmother and a sister, between a mother-in-law and a +daughter, between a brother-in-law and a grandfather? Apart from some +special form of social relationship, there can be no such resemblances. +Further, if there were such psychological resemblances, why should we +know of their influence on nomenclature only in Pentecost and among the +Dieri? The features to be explained are definitely known to exist in +only two systems of the world, and it is only among the peoples who use +these two systems that we have any evidence of that extraordinary form +of marriage of which they would be the natural consequence. + + * * * * * + +I have now tried to show the dependence of special features of the +classificatory system of relationship upon special social conditions. +If I have succeeded in this I shall have gone far towards the +accomplishment of one of the main purposes of these lectures. They +have, however, another purpose, viz., to inquire how far we are +justified in inferring the existence of a social institution of which +we have no direct evidence when we find features of the nomenclature +of relationship which would result from such an institution. I have +now to enter upon this part of my subject, and I think it will be +instructive to take you at once to a case in which I believe that an +extraordinary form of marriage can be established as a feature of the +past history of a people, although at the present moment any direct +evidence for the existence of such a marriage is wholly lacking. + +When I was in the interior of Viti Levu, one of the Fijian islands, +I discovered the existence of certain systems of relationship which +differed fundamentally from the only Fijian systems previously known. +Any features referable to the cross-cousin marriage were completely +absent, but in their place were others, one of which I have already +mentioned, which brought into one class relatives two generations +apart. The father's father received the same designation as the +elder brother, and the son's wife was called by the same term as the +mother. As I have already said, my first conclusion was that these +terms were the survivals of forms of social organisation resembling +the matrimonial classes of Australia, but as soon as I had worked out +the explanation of the Pentecost system, it became evident that the +Fijian peculiarities would have to be explained on similar lines. At +first I thought it probable that the difference between the Pentecost +and Fijian systems was due to the difference in the mode of descent +in the two places. For long I tried to work out schemes whereby a +change from the matrilineal descent of Pentecost to the patrilineal +condition of Fiji could have had as one of its consequences a change +from a correspondence in nomenclature between the mother's mother +and the elder sister to one in which the common nomenclature applied +to the father's father and the elder brother. It is an interesting +example of the strength of a preconceived opinion, and of some +measure of the belief in the impossibility of customs not practised +by ourselves, that for more than two years I failed to see an obvious +alternative explanation, although I returned to the subject again and +again. The clue came at last from the system of Buin, in the island +of Bougainville, recorded by Dr. Thurnwald.[16] The nomenclature of +this system agreed with that of inland Fiji in having one term for the +father's father and the elder brother, but since the people of Buin +still practice matrilineal descent, it was evident that I had been on +a false track in supposing the correspondence to have been the result +of a change in the mode of descent. Once turned into a fresh path by +the necessity of showing how the correspondence could have arisen out +of a matrilineal condition, it was not long before I saw how it might +be accounted for in a very different way. I saw that the correspondence +would be the natural result of a form of social organisation in which +it was the practice to marry a grandmother, viz., the wife of the +father's father. Not only did this form of marriage explain the second +peculiar feature of the Fijian system, viz., the classing of the son's +wife with the mother, but it would also account for several features of +the Buin system which would otherwise be difficult to understand. + +[16] _Zeitsch. f. vergleich. Rechtswiss._, 1910, xxiii., 330. + +[Illustration: DIAGRAM 5. + + A = b + | + | + C = d + | + | + +-------+-------+ + | | | + E F f +] + +If, as shown in Diagram 5, _E_ marries _b_, the wife or widow of his +father's father, he, who had previously been the elder brother of _F_ +and _f_, now comes to occupy the position of their father's father, +while _d_, the mother of _E_, will now come to stand to him in the +relationship of son's wife. + +I need only mention here one of the features of the Buin system which +can be accounted for by means of this marriage. The term _mamai_ is +used, not only for the elder sister and for the elder brother's wife, +but it is also applied to the father's mother; that is, the wife of +the elder brother is designated by the same term as the wife of the +father's father, exactly as must happen if _E_ marries _b_, the wife +of his father's father. A number of extraordinary features from two +Melanesian islands collected by two independent workers fit into a +coherent scheme if they have been the result of a marriage in which +a man gives one of his wives to his son's son during his life, or in +which this woman is taken to wife by her husband's grandson when she +becomes a widow. If the practice were ever sufficiently habitual to +become the basis of the system of relationship, we can be confident +that it is the former of these two alternatives with which we have to +do. + +If you are still so under the domination of ideas derived from your own +social surroundings that you cannot believe in such a marriage, I would +remind you that there is definite evidence from the Banks Islands that +men used to hand over wives to their sisters' sons. It is not taking us +so much into the unknown as it might appear to suppose that they once +also gave their wives to their sons' sons. + +I have taken this case somewhat out of its proper place in my argument +because the evidence is so closely connected with that by means +of which I have shown the relation between features of systems of +relationship and peculiar forms of marriage in Melanesia. I have now to +return to the more sober task of considering how far we are justified +in inferring the former existence of marriage institutions when we +find features of systems of relationship of which they would have been +the natural consequence. It is evident that, whenever we find such a +feature as common nomenclature for a grandmother and a sister or for a +cross-cousin and a parent, it should suggest to us the possibility of +such marriage regulations as those of Pentecost and the Banks Islands. +But such common designations might have arisen in some other way, +and in order to establish the existence of such forms of marriage in +the past history of the people, we must have criteria to guide us +when we are considering whether a given feature of the terminology of +relationship is or is not a survival of a marriage institution. + +I will return to the cross-cousin marriage for my examples. The task +before us is to inquire how far such features of relationship as exist +in Fiji, Anaiteum or Guadalcanar, in conjunction with the cross-cousin +marriage, will justify us in inferring the former existence of this +form of marriage in places where it is not now practised. + +If there be found among any people all the characteristic features of +a coastal Fijian or of an Anaiteum system, I think few will be found +to doubt the former existence of the cross-cousin marriage. It would +seem almost inconceivable that there should ever have existed any other +conditions, whether social or psychological, which could have produced +this special combination of peculiar uses of terms of relationship. It +is when some only of these features are present that there will arise +any serious doubt whether they are to be regarded as survivals of the +former existence of the cross-cousin marriage. + +One consideration I must point out at once. Certain of the features +which follow from the cross-cousin marriage may be the result of +another marriage regulation. In some parts of the world there exists a +custom of exchanging brothers and sisters, so that, when a man marries +a woman, his sister marries his wife's brother. As the result of this +custom the mother's brother and the father's sister's husband will come +to be one and the same person, and the father's sister will become also +the mother's brother's wife. + +This form of marriage exists among the western people of Torres +Straits,[17] and is accompanied by features of the system of +relationship which would follow from the practice. The mother's brother +is classed with the father's sister's husband as _wad-wam_, but there +is an alternative term for the father's sister's husband and there +was no evidence that the mother's brother's wife was classed with +the father's sister. It seemed possible that the classing together +of the mother's brother and the father's sister's husband was not a +constant feature of the system of relationship, but only occurred in +cases where the custom of exchange had made it necessary. The case, +however, is sufficient to show that two of the correspondences which +follow from the cross-cousin marriage may be the result of another +kind of marriage. If we accept the social causation of such features +and find these correspondences alone, it would still remain an open +question whether they were the results of the custom of exchange or +of the marriage of cross-cousins. The custom of exchange, however, is +wholly incapable of accounting for the use of a common term for the +mother's brother and the father-in-law, for the father's sister and the +mother-in-law, or for cross-cousins and brothers- or sisters-in-law. +It is only when these correspondences are present that there will +be any decisive reason for inferring the former existence of the +cross-cousin marriage. + +[17] _Rep. Cambridge Expedition to Torres Straits_, vol. v., pp. 135 +and 241. + +The first conclusion, then, is that some of the features found in +association with the cross-cousin marriage are of greater value than +others in enabling us to infer the former existence of the cross-cousin +marriage where it no longer exists. Next, the probability that such +features as I am considering are due to the former presence of the +cross-cousin marriage will be greatly heightened if this form of +marriage should exist among people with allied cultures. An instance +from Melanesia will bring out this point clearly. + +In the island of Florida in the Solomons it is clear that the +cross-cousin marriage is not now the custom, and I could discover +no tradition of its existence in the past. One feature, however, of +the system of relationship is just such as would follow from the +cross-cousin marriage. Both the wife's mother and the wife of the +mother's brother are called _vungo_. + +Florida is not only near Guadalcanar where the cross-cousin marriage +is practised, (the two islands are within sight of one another), but +their cultures are very closely related. In such a case the probability +that the single feature of the Florida system which follows from the +cross-cousin marriage has actually had that form of marriage as its +antecedent becomes very great, and this conclusion becomes still more +probable when we find that in a third island, Ysabel, closely allied +in culture both to Florida and Guadalcanar, there is a clear tradition +of the former practice of the cross-cousin marriage although it is now +only an occasional event. + +Again, in one district of San Cristoval in the Solomons the term +_fongo_ is used both for the father-in-law and the father's sister's +husband, and _kafongo_ similarly denotes both the mother-in-law and +the mother's brother's wife. This island differs more widely from +Guadalcanar in culture than Florida or Ysabel, but the evidence for +the former existence of the marriage in these islands gives us more +confidence in ascribing the common designations of San Cristoval to the +cross-cousin marriage than would have been the case if these common +designations had been the only examples of such possible survivals in +the Solomons. Speaking in more general terms, one may say that the +probability that the common nomenclature for two relatives is the +survival of a form of marriage becomes the greater, the more similar is +the general culture in which the supposed survival is found to that of +a people who practise this form of marriage. The case will be greatly +strengthened if there should be intermediate links between the supposed +survival and the still living institution. + +When we find a feature such as that of the Florida system among a +people none of whose allies in culture practise the cross-cousin +marriage, the matter must be far more doubtful. In the present state +of our knowledge we are only justified in making such a feature the +basis of a working hypothesis to stimulate research and encourage us +to look for other evidence in the neighbourhood of the place where the +feature has been found. Our knowledge of the social institutions of the +world is not yet so complete that we can afford to neglect any clue +which may guide our steps. + +I propose briefly to consider two regions, South India and North +America, to show how they differ from this point of view. + +The terms of relationship used in three[18] of the chief languages +spoken by the people of South India are exactly such as would follow +from the cross-cousin marriage. In Tamil[19] the mother's brother, the +father's sister's husband, and the father of both husband and wife are +all called _mama_, and this term is also used for these relatives in +Telegu. In Canarese the mother's brother and the father-in-law are both +called _mava_, but the father's sister's husband fails to fall into +line and is classed with the father's brother. + +[18] I know of no complete record of the terminology of the fourth +chief language of South India, Malayalam. + +[19] I take my data from the lists compiled for Morgan by the Rev. E. +C. Scudder and the Rev. B. Rice, Morgan's _Systems ..._, pp. 537-566. +These lists are not complete, giving in some cases only the terms used +in address. They agree in general with some lists compiled during the +recent Indian Census which Mr. E. A. Gait has kindly sent to me. + +Similarly, the father's sister, the mother's brother's wife and the +mother of both wife and husband are called _atta_ in Telegu and _atte_ +in Canarese, Tamil here spoiling the harmony by having one term, +_attai_, for the father's sister and another, _mami_, for the mother's +brother's wife and the mother-in-law. Since, however, the Tamil term +for the father's sister is only another form of the Telegu and Canarese +words for the combined relationships, the exception only serves to +strengthen the agreement with the condition which would follow from the +cross-cousin marriage. + +The South Indian terms for cross-cousin and brother- and sister-in-law +are complicated by the presence of distinctions dependent on the sex +and relative age of those who use them, but these complications do +not disguise how definitely the terminology would follow from the +cross-cousin marriage. Thus, to take only two examples: a Tamil man +applies the term _maittuni_ to the daughters of his mother's brother +and of his father's sister as well as to his brother's wife and his +wife's sister, and a Canarese woman uses one term for the sons of her +mother's brother and of her father's sister, for her husband's brother +and her sister's husband. + +So far as we know, the cross-cousin marriage is not now practised by +the vast majority of those who use these terms of relationship. If the +terminology has been the result of the cross-cousin marriage, it is +only a survival of an ancient social condition in which this form of +marriage was habitual. That it is such a survival, however, becomes +certain when we find the cross-cousin marriage still persisting in +many parts of South India, and that among one such people at least, +the Todas,[20] this form of marriage is associated with a system of +relationship agreeing both in its structure and linguistic character +with that of the Tamils. I have elsewhere[21] brought together the +evidence for the former prevalence of this form of marriage in India, +but even if there were no evidence, the terminology of relationship is +so exactly such as would follow from the cross-cousin marriage that we +can be certain that this form of marriage was once the habitual custom +of the people of South India. + +[20] Rivers, _The Todas_, 1906, pp. 487, 512. + +[21] _Journal Royal Asiatic Society_, 1907, p. 611. + +While South India thus provides a good example of a case in which we +can confidently infer the former existence of the cross-cousin marriage +from the terminology of relationship, the evidence from North America +is of a kind which gives to such an inference only a certain degree of +probability. In this case it is necessary to suspend judgment and await +further evidence before coming to a positive conclusion. + +I will begin with a very doubtful feature which comes from an +Athapascan tribe, the Red Knives[22] (probably that now called Yellow +Knife). These people use a common term, _set-so_, for the father's +sister, the mother's brother's wife, the wife's mother and the +husband's mother, a usage which would be the necessary result of +the cross-cousin marriage. Against this, however, is to be put the +fact that there are three different terms for the corresponding male +relatives, the two kinds of father-in-law being called _seth-a_, +the mother's brother _ser-a_, and the father's sister's husband +_sel-the-ne_. Further, the term _set-so_, the common use of which for +the aunt and mother-in-law seems to indicate the cross-cousin marriage, +is also applied by a man to his brother's wife and his wife's sister, +features which cannot possibly be the result of this form of marriage. +These features show, either that the terminology has arisen in some +other way, or that there has been some additional social factor in +operation which has greatly modified a nomenclature derived from the +cross-cousin marriage. + +[22] See Morgan, _Systems ..._, Table II. + +A stronger case is presented by the terminology of three branches +of the Cree tribe, also recorded by Morgan. In all three systems, +one term, _ne-sis_ or _nee-sis_, is used for the mother's brother, +the father's sister's husband, the wife's father and the husband's +father; while the term _nis-si-goos_ applies to the father's sister, +the mother's brother's wife and the two kinds of mother-in-law. These +usages are exactly such as would follow from the cross-cousin marriage. +The terms for the sister's son of a man and the brother's son of a +woman, however, differ from those used for the son-in-law, and there +is also no correspondence between the terms for cross-cousin and any +kind of brother- or sister-in-law. The case points more definitely to +the cross-cousin marriage than in the case of the Red Knives, but yet +lacks the completeness which would allow us to make the inference with +confidence. + +The Assiniboin have a common term, _me-toh-we_, used for the father's +sister, the mother's brother's wife and the two kinds of mother-in-law, +and also a common term, _me-nake-she_, for the mother's brother and +the father's sister's husband, but the latter differs from the word, +_me-to-ga-she_, used for the father of husband or wife. The case here +is decidedly stronger than among the Red Knives, but is less complete +than among the Crees. + +Among a number of branches of the Dakotas the evidence is of a +different kind, being derived from similar nomenclature for the +cross-cousin and certain kinds of brother- and sister-in-law. +Morgan[23] has recorded eight systems, all of which show the features +in question, but I will consider here only that of the Isauntie or +Santee Dakotas, which was collected for him by the Rev. S. R. Riggs. +Riggs[24] and Dorsey[25] have given independent accounts of this system +which are far less complete than that given by Morgan, but agree with +it in all essentials. + +[23] _Loc. cit._ + +[24] _Dakota Grammar, Texts, and Ethnography: Contributions to North +American Ethnology_, Washington, vol. ix. + +[25] Preface to above. + +In this system a man calls the son of his mother's brother or of +his father's sister _ta-hang-she_ or _tang-hang-she_, while his +wife's brother and his sister's husband are _ta-hang_ or _tang-hang_. +Similarly, a woman calls her cross-cousin _she-chay-she_, while her +husband's brother and her sister's husband are called _she-chay_. The +terms for brothers-in-law are thus the same as those for cross-cousins +with the omission of the suffix _she_. One of these resemblances, that +when a woman is speaking, has been cited by Professor Kroeber[26] as an +example of the psychological causation of such features of relationship +as I am considering in these lectures. He rejects its dependence on the +cross-cousin marriage and refers the resemblance to the psychological +similarity between a woman's cousin and her brother-in-law in that both +are collateral relatives alike in sex, of the same generation as the +speaker, but different from her in sex. + +[26] _Op. cit._, p. 82. + +As we have seen, however, the Dakota correspondence is not an isolated +occurrence, but fits in with a number of other features of the systems +of cognate peoples to form a body of evidence pointing to the former +prevalence of the cross-cousin marriage. + +There is also indirect evidence leading in the same direction. In +Melanesia there is reason to believe that the cross-cousin marriage +stands in a definite relation to another form of marriage, that with +the wife of the mother's brother. If there should be evidence for the +former existence of this marriage in North America, it would increase +the probability in favour of the cross-cousin marriage. + +Among a number of peoples, some of whom form part of the Sioux, +including the Minnitarees, Crows, Choctas, Creeks, Cherokees and +Pawnees, cross-cousins are classed with parents and children exactly as +in the Banks Islands, and exactly as in those islands, it is the son of +the father's sister who is classed with the father, and the children of +the mother's brother who are classed with sons or daughters. Further, +among the Pawnees the wife of the mother's brother is classed with +the wife, a feature also associated with the peculiar nomenclature +for cross-cousins in the Banks Islands. The agreement is so close as +to make it highly probable that the American features of relationship +have been derived from a social institution of the same kind as that +to which the Melanesian features are due, and that it was once the +custom of these American peoples to marry the wife of the mother's +brother. Here, as in the case of the cross-cousin marriage itself, +the case rests entirely upon the terminology of relationship, but we +cannot ignore the association in neighbouring parts of North America of +features of relationship which would be the natural consequence of two +forms of marriage which are known to be associated together elsewhere. + +I am indebted to Miss Freire-Marreco for the information that the Tewa +of Hano, a Pueblo tribe, call the father's sister's son _tada_, a term +otherwise used for the father, thus suggesting that they also may once +have practised marriage with the wife of the mother's brother. The +use of this term, however, is only one example of a practice whereby +all the males of the father's clan are called _tada_, irrespective of +age and generation. The common nomenclature for the father and the +father's sister's son among the Tewa thus differs in character from +the apparently similar nomenclature of the Banks Islands and cannot +have been determined directly, perhaps not even remotely, by marriage +with the wife of the mother's brother. This raises the question whether +the nomenclature of the Sioux has not arisen out of a practice similar +to that of the Tewa. The terms for other relatives recorded by Morgan +show some evidence of the widely generalised use of the Tewa, but such +a use cannot account for the classing of the wife of the mother's +brother with the wife which occurs among the Pawnees. Nevertheless, the +Tewa practice should keep us alive to the possibility that the Sioux +nomenclature may depend on some social condition different from that +which has been effective in the Banks Islands in spite of the close +resemblance between the two. + +The case for the former existence of the cross-cousin marriage will be +much strengthened if this form of marriage should occur elsewhere in +North America. So far as I am aware, the only people among whom it has +been recorded are the Haidahs of Queen Charlotte Island.[27] It is +a far cry from this outpost of North American culture to Dakota, but +it may be noted that it is among the Crees who formerly lived in the +intermediate region of Manitoba and Assiniboia that the traces of the +cross-cousin marriage are most definite. This mode of distribution of +the peoples whose terminology of relationship bears evidence of the +cross-cousin marriage suggests that other intermediate links may yet +be found. Though the existing evidence is inconclusive, it should be +sufficient to stimulate a search for other evidence which may make it +possible to decide whether or no the cross-cousin marriage was once a +widespread practice in North America. + +[27] Swanton, _Contributions to the Ethnology of the Haidahs, Jesup +North Pacific Expedition_, 1905, vol. v., pt. i., p. 62. Miss +Freire-Marreco tells me that the cross-cousin marriage occurs among +some of the Hopi Indians. + +I can only consider one other kind of marriage here. The discovery of +so remarkable a union as that with the daughter's daughter in Pentecost +and the evidence pointing to a still more remarkable marriage between +those having the status of grandparent and grandchild in Fiji and +Buin have naturally led me to look for similar evidence elsewhere +in Melanesia. Though there is nothing conclusive, conditions are to +be found here and there which suggest the former existence of such +marriages. + +When I was in the Solomons I met a native of the Trobriand Islands, +who told me that among his people the term _tabu_ was applied both +to grandparents and to the father's sister's child. I went into the +whole subject as fully as was possible with only one witness, but in +spite of his obvious intelligence and good faith, I remained doubtful +whether the information was correct. The feature in question, however, +occurs in the list of Trobriand terms drawn up for Dr. Seligmann[28] +by Mr. Bellamy, and with this double warrant it must be accepted. It +is a feature which would follow from marriage with the daughter's +daughter, for by this marriage one who was previously a father's +sister's daughter becomes the wife of a grandfather and thereby attains +the status of a grandparent. The feature exists alone, and, further, +it is combined with other applications of the term which deprive it +of some of its significance; nevertheless, the fact that a peculiar +and exceptional feature of a Melanesian system of relationship is such +as would follow naturally from a form of marriage which is practised +in another part of Melanesia cannot be passed over. Standing alone, +it would be wholly insufficient to justify the conclusion that the +marriage with the daughter's daughter was ever prevalent among the +Massim, but in place of expressing a dogmatic denial, let us look for +other features of Massim sociology which may have been the results of +such a marriage. + +[28] See _The Melanesians of British New Guinea_, Cambridge, 1910, p. +707. + +In Wagawaga[29] there is a peculiar term, _warihi_, which is used +by men for other men of their own generation and social group, but +the term is also applied by an old man or woman to one of a younger +generation. Again, in Tubetube[30] the term for a husband, _taubara_, +is also a term for an old man, and the term for the wife is also +applied to an old woman. These usages may be nothing more than +indications of respect for a husband or wife, or of some mechanism +which brought those differing widely in age into one social category, +but with the clue provided by the Trobriand term of relationship it +becomes possible, though even now only possible, that the Wagawaga and +Tubetube customs may have arisen out of a social condition in which +it was customary to have great disparity of age between husbands and +wives, and social relations between old and young following from such +disparity in the age of consorts. + +[29] _Ibid._, pp. 482 and 436. + +[30] _The Melanesians of British New Guinea_, Cambridge, 1910, p. 482. + +In Tubetube there is yet another piece of evidence. Mr. Field[31] +has recorded the existence in this island of three named categories +of persons, two of which comprise relatives with whom marriage is +prohibited, while the third groups together those with whom marriage +is allowed. The grandparents and grandchildren are included in one of +the two prohibited classes, so that we can be confident that marriage +between these relatives does not now occur. The point to which I call +your attention is that the class of relative with whom marriage is +allowed is called _kasoriegogoli_. _Li_ is the third person pronominal +suffix, and we do not know the meaning of _kasorie_, but _goga_ is +the term used in Wagawaga and Wedau for the grandparents, its place +being taken by the usual Melanesian term _tubu_ in Tubetube. The term +_kasoriegogoli_ applied to marriageable relatives thus contains as one +of its constituent elements a word which is probably the ancient term +for grandparent in the island, since it is still used in this sense in +the closely allied societies of the mainland. + +[31] Rep. Austral. Ass., 1900, viii., 301. + +We have thus a number of independent facts among the Massim, all of +which would be the natural outcome of marriage between persons of +alternate generations. To no one of them standing alone could much +importance be attached, but taken in conjunction, they ought at least +to suggest the possibility of such a marriage, a possibility which +becomes the more probable when we consider that the Massim show clear +evidence of the dual organisation of society with matrilineal descent +which is associated with the granddaughter marriage of Pentecost and +the Dieri of Australia. It adds to the weight of the evidence that +indications of this peculiar form of marriage should be found among a +people whose social organisation so closely resembles that in which the +marriages between persons of alternate generations elsewhere occur. + +I have no time for other examples. I hope to have shown that there are +cases in which it is possible to infer with certainty the ancient +existence of forms of marriage from the survival of their results in +the terminology of relationship. In other cases, differences of culture +or the absence of intermediate links make it unjustifiable to infer +the ancient existence of the forms of marriage from which features of +terminology might be derived. Other cases lie between the two, the +confidence with which a form of marriage can be inferred varying with +the degree of likeness of culture, the distance in space, and the +presence or absence of other features of culture which may be related +to the form of marriage in question. Even in the cases, however, where +the inference is most doubtful, we have no right dogmatically to deny +the origin of the terminology of relationship in social conditions, but +should keep each example before an open mind, to guide and stimulate +inquiry in a region where ethnologists have till now only scratched the +surface covering a rich mine of knowledge. + + + + +LECTURE III + + +Thus far in these lectures I have been content to demonstrate the +dependence of the terminology of relationship upon forms of marriage. +In spending so much time upon this aspect of my subject I fear that +I may have been helping to strengthen a very general misconception, +for it is frequently supposed that the sole aim of those who think +as I do is to explain systems of relationship by their origin in +forms of marriage. Marriage is only one of the social institutions +which have moulded the terminology of relationship. It is, however, +so fundamental a social institution that it is difficult to get far +away from it in any argument which deals with social organisation. In +now passing to other examples of the dependence of the terminology of +relationship upon social conditions, I begin with one in which features +of this terminology have come about, not as the result of forms of +marriage, but of an attitude towards social regulations connected with +marriage. The instance I have now to consider is closely allied to one +which Professor Kroeber has used as his pattern of the psychological +causation of the terminology of relationship. + +Both in Polynesia and Melanesia it is not infrequent for the +father-in-law to be classed with the father, the mother-in-law with +the mother, the brother-in-law with the brother, and the sister-in-law +with the sister. The Oceanic terminology of relationship has two +features which enable us to study the exact nature of this process in +more detail than is possible with our own system. Oceanic languages +often distinguish carefully between different kinds of brother- and +sister-in-law, and, if it be found that it is only certain kinds of +brother- or sister-in-law who are classed with the brother or sister, +we may thereby obtain a clue to the nature of the process whereby +the classing has come about. Secondly, Oceanic terminology usually +distinguishes relationships between men or between women from those +between persons of different sex, and there is a feature of the +terminology employed when brothers- or sisters-in-law are classed with +brothers or sisters in Oceania which throws much light on the process +whereby this common nomenclature has come into use. + +The first point to be noticed in the Oceanic nomenclature of +relationship is that not all brothers- and sisters-in-law are classed +with brothers and sisters, but only those of different sex. Thus, +in Merlav, in the Banks Islands, it is only the wife's sister and +a man's brother's wife who are classed with the sister, and the +husband's brother and a woman's sister's husband who are classed with +the brother, while there are special terms for other categories +of relative whom we include under the designations brother- and +sister-in-law. Similar conditions are general throughout Melanesia. If, +as Professor Kroeber has supposed, the classing of the brother-in-law +with the brother be due to the psychological similarity of the +relationships, we ought to be able to discover why this similarity +should be greater between persons of different sex than between persons +of the same sex. + +If now we study our case from the Banks Islands more closely and +compare the social conditions in Merlav with those of other islands +of the group, we find definite evidence, which it will not now be +possible to consider in detail, showing that sexual relations were +formerly allowed between a man and his wife's sisters and his brothers' +wives, and that there is a definite association between the classing +of these relatives with the sister and the cessation of such sexual +relations. If such people as the Melanesians wish to emphasise in the +strongest manner possible the impropriety of sexual relations between +a man and the sisters of his wife, there is no way in which they can +do it more effectually than by classing these relatives with a sister. +To a Melanesian, as to other people of rude culture, the use of a +term otherwise applied to a sister carries with it such deeply-seated +associations as to put sexual relations absolutely out of the question. +There is a large body of evidence from southern Melanesia which +suggests strongly, if not conclusively, that the common nomenclature +I am now considering has arisen out of the social need for emphasising +the impropriety of relations which were once habitual among the people. + +The second feature of Melanesian terminology which I have mentioned +helps us to understand how the common nomenclature has come about. +In most of the Melanesian cases in which a wife's sister is denoted +by a term otherwise used for a sister, or a husband's brother by a +term otherwise used for a brother, the term employed is one which is +normally used between those of the same sex. Thus, a man does not apply +to his wife's sister the term which he himself uses for his sister, but +one which would be used by a woman of her sister. In other words, a man +uses for his wife's sister the term which is used for this relative +by his wife. This shows us how the common nomenclature may have come +into use. It suggests that as sexual relations with the wife's sister +became no longer orthodox, a man came to apply to this woman the word +with which he was already familiar as a term for this relative from +the mouth of his wife. The special feature of Melanesian nomenclature +according to which terms of relationship vary with the sex of the +speaker here helps us to understand how the common nomenclature arose. +The process is one in which psychological factors evidently play an +important part, but these psychological factors are themselves the +outcome of a social process, viz., the change from a condition of +sexual communism to one in which sexual relations are restricted to +the partners of a marriage. Such psychological factors as come into +action are only intermediate links in a chain of causation in which the +two ends are definitely social processes or events, or, perhaps more +correctly, psychological concomitants of intermediate links which are +themselves social events. We should be shutting our eyes to obvious +features of these Melanesian customs if we refused to recognise that +the terminology of relationship here "reflects" sociology. + +This leads me to question for a moment whether it may not be the same +with that custom of our own society which Professor Kroeber has taken +as his example of the psychological causation of the terminology +of relationship. Is it as certain as Professor Kroeber supposes +that the classing of the brother-in-law with the brother, or of the +sister-in-law with the sister, among ourselves does not reflect +sociology? We know that there are social factors at work among us which +give to these relationships, and especially to that of wife's sister, +a very great importance. If instead of stating dogmatically that this +feature of our own terminology is due to the psychological similarity +of the relationships, Professor Kroeber's mind had been open even to +the possibility of the working of social causes, I think he might +have been led to inquire more closely into the distribution and exact +character of the practice in question. He might have been led to see +that we have here a problem for exact inquiry. Such a custom among +ourselves must certainly own a cause different from that to which I +have ascribed the Melanesian practice, but is it certain that there is +no social practice among ourselves which would lead to the classing +of the wife's sister with the sister and the sister's husband of a +woman with the brother? I will only point to the practice of marrying +the deceased wife's sister, and content myself with the remark that I +should be surprised if there were any general tendency to class these +relatives together by a people among whom this form of marriage is the +orthodox and habitual custom. + +Till now I have been dealing with relatively small variations of the +classificatory system. The varieties I have so far considered are such +as would arise out of a common system if in one place there came into +vogue the cross-cousin marriage, in another place marriage with the +wife of the mother's brother, in another that with the granddaughter +of the brother or with the wife of the grandfather, and in yet +other places combinations of these forms of marriage. I have now to +consider whether it is possible to refer the main varieties of the +classificatory system to social conditions; as an example with which +to begin, I choose one which is so definite that it attracted the +attention of Morgan, viz., the variety of the classificatory system +which Morgan called "Malayan". It is now generally recognised that +this term was badly chosen. The variety so called was known to Morgan +through the terminology of the Hawaiian Islands, and as the system +of these islands was not only the first to be recorded, but is also +that of which even now we have the most complete record, I propose +to use it as the pattern and to speak of the Hawaiian system where +Morgan spoke of the Malayan. If now we compare the Hawaiian system +with the forms of the classificatory system found in other parts of +Oceania, in Australia, India, Africa or America, we find that it is +characterised by its extreme simplicity and by the fewness of its +terms. Distinctions such as those between the father's brother and the +mother's brother, between the father's sister and the mother's sister, +and between the children of brothers or of sisters and the children +of brother and sister, distinctions which are so generally present in +the more usual forms of the classificatory system, are here completely +absent. The problem before us is to discover whether the absence of +these distinctions can be referred to any social factors. If not, we +may be driven to suppose that there is something in the structure of +the Polynesian mind which leads the Hawaiian and the Maori to see +similarities where most other peoples of rude culture see differences. + +The first point to be noted is that in Oceania the distinction between +the Hawaiian and the more usual forms of the classificatory system +does not correspond with the distinction between the Polynesian and +Melanesian peoples. Systems are to be found in Melanesia, as in the +western Solomons, which closely resemble that of Hawaii, while there +are Polynesian systems, such as those of Tonga and Tikopia, which are +so like those of Melanesia that, if they had occurred there, they would +have attracted no special attention. The difference between the two +kinds of system is not to be correlated with any difference of race. + +Next, if we take Melanesian and Polynesian systems as a whole, we find +that they do not fall into two sharply marked-off groups, but that +there are any number of intermediate gradations between the two. It +would be possible to arrange the classificatory systems of Oceania in a +series in which it would not be possible to draw the line at any point +between the different varieties of system which the two ends of the +series seem to represent. The question arises whether it is possible +to find any other series of transitions in Oceania which runs parallel +with the series connecting the two varieties of system of relationship. +There is no doubt but that this question can be answered in the +affirmative. + +Speaking broadly, there are two main varieties of social organisation +in Oceania, with an infinite number of intermediate conditions. In one +variety marriage is regulated by some kind of clan-exogamy, including +under the term "clan" the moieties of a dual organisation; in the other +variety marriage is regulated by kinship or genealogical relationship. +We know of no part of Melanesia where marriage is regulated solely by +clan-exogamy, but it is possible to arrange Melanesian and Polynesian +societies in a series according to the different degrees in which the +principles of genealogical relationship is the determining factor in +the regulation of marriage. At one end of the series we should have +places like the Banks Islands, the northern New Hebrides and the Santa +Cruz Islands, where the clan-organisation is so obviously important +that it was the only mechanism for the regulation of marriage which was +recognised even by so skilful an observer as Dr. Codrington. At the +other end of the series we have places such as the Hawaiian Islands +and Eddystone Island in the western Solomons, where only the barest +traces of a clan-organisation are to be found and where marriage is +regulated solely by genealogical relationship. Between the two are +numerous intermediate cases, and the series so formed runs so closely +parallel to that representing the transitions between different forms +of the classificatory system that it seems out of the question but +that there should be a relation between the two. Of all the places +where I have myself worked, the two in which I failed to find any trace +of the regulation of marriage by means of a clan-organisation were +the Hawaiian Islands and Eddystone Island, and the systems of both +places were lacking in just those distinctions the absence of which +characterised the Malayan system of Morgan. Only in one point did the +Eddystone system differ from the Hawaiian. Though the mother's brother +was classed in nomenclature with the father, there was a term for the +sister's son, but it was so little used that in a superficial survey it +would have escaped notice. Its use was so exceptional that many of the +islanders were doubtful about its proper meaning. In other parts of the +Solomons where the clan-organisation persists, but where the regulation +of marriage by genealogical relationship is equally, if not more, +important, the systems of relationship show intermediate characters. +Thus, in the island of Florida the mother's brother was distinguished +from the father and there was a term by means of which to distinguish +cross-cousins from other kinds of cousin, but the father's sister was +classed with the mother, and it was habitual to ignore the proper term +for cross-cousins and to class them in nomenclature with brothers and +sisters and with cousins of other kinds, as in the Hawaiian system. +One influential man even applied the term for father to the mother's +brother; it was evident that a change is even now in progress which +would have to go very little farther to make the Florida system +indistinguishable in structure from that of Hawaii. + +Among the western Papuo-Melanesians of New Guinea, again, the systems +of relationship come very near to the Hawaiian type, and with this +character there is associated a very high degree of importance of the +regulation of marriage by genealogical relationship and a vagueness of +clan-organisation. We have here so close a parallelism between two +series of social phenomena as to supply as good an example as could be +wished of the application of the method of concomitant variations in +the domain of sociology. + +The nature of these changes and their relation to the general cultures +of the peoples who use the different forms of terminology show that the +transitions are to be associated with a progressive change which has +taken place in Oceania. In this part of the world the classificatory +system has been the seat of a process of simplification starting +from the almost incredible complexity of Pentecost and reaching the +simplicity of such systems as those of Eddystone or Mekeo. This process +has gone hand in hand with one in which the regulation of marriage by +some kind of clan-exogamy has gradually been replaced by a mechanism +based on relationship as traced by means of pedigrees. + +If this conclusion be accepted, it will follow that the more widely +distributed varieties of the classificatory system of relationship +are associated with a social structure which has the exogamous social +group as its essential unit. This position has only to be stated for +it to become apparent how all the main features of the classificatory +system are such as would follow directly from such a social structure. +Wherever the classificatory system is found in association with a +system of exogamous social groups, the terms of relationship do +not apply merely to relatives with whom it is possible to trace +genealogical relationship, but to all the members of a clan of a given +generation, even if no such relationship with them can be traced. Thus, +a man will not only apply the term "father" to all the brothers of his +father, to all the sons' sons of his father's father, and to all the +sons' sons' sons of his father's father's father, to all the husbands +of his mother's sisters and of his mother's mother's granddaughters, +etc., but he will also apply the term to all the members of his +father's clan of the same generation as his father and to all the +husbands of the women of the mother's clan of the same generation as +the mother, even when it is quite impossible to show any genealogical +relationship with them. All these and the other main features of the +classificatory system become at once natural and intelligible if this +system had its origin in a social structure in which exogamous social +groups, such as the clan or moiety, were even more completely and +essentially the social units than we know them to be to-day among the +peoples whose social systems have been carefully studied. If you are +dissatisfied with the word "classificatory" as a term for the system of +relationship which is found in America, Africa, India, Australia and +Oceania, you would be perfectly safe in calling it the "clan" system, +and in inferring the ancient presence of a social structure based on +the exogamous clan even if this structure were no longer present. + +Not only is the general character of the classificatory system exactly +such as would be the consequence of its origin in a social structure +founded on the exogamous social group, but many details of these +systems point in the same direction. Thus, the rigorous distinctions +between father's brother and mother's brother, and between father's +sister and mother's sister, which are characteristic of the usual +forms of the classificatory system, are the obvious consequence of the +principle of exogamy. If this principle be in action, these relatives +must always belong to different social groups, so that it would be +natural to distinguish them in nomenclature. + +Further, there are certain features of the classificatory system which +suggest its origin in a special form of exogamous social grouping, +viz., that usually known as the dual system in which there are only two +social groups or moieties. It is an almost universal feature of the +classificatory system that the children of brothers are classed with +the children of sisters. A man applies the same term to his mother's +sister's children which he uses for his father's brother's children, +and the use of this term, being the same as that used for a brother +or sister, carries with it the most rigorous prohibition of marriage. +Such a condition would not follow necessarily from a social state in +which there were more than two social groups. If the society were +patrilineal, the children of two brothers would necessarily belong to +the same social group, so that the principle of exogamy would prevent +marriage between them, but if the women of the group had married into +different clans, there is no reason arising out of the principle of +exogamy which should prevent marriage between their children or lead +to the use of a term common to them and the children of brothers. +Similarly, if the society were matrilineal, the children of two sisters +would necessarily belong to the same social group, but this would +not be the case with the children of brothers who might marry into +different social groups. + +If, however, there be only two social groups, the case is very +different. It would make no difference whether descent were patrilineal +or matrilineal. In each case the children of two brothers or of two +sisters must belong to the same moiety, while the children of brother +and sister must belong to different moieties. The children of two +brothers would be just as ineligible as consorts as the children of +two sisters. Similarly, it would be a natural consequence of the dual +organisation that the mother's brother's children should be classed +with the father's sister's children, but this would not be necessary if +there were more than two social groups. + +I should have liked, if there were time, to deal with other features +of the classificatory system, but must be content with these examples. +I hope to have succeeded in showing that the social causation of the +terminology of relationship goes far beyond the mere dependence of +features of the system on special forms of marriage, and that the +character of the classificatory system as a whole has been determined +by its origin in a specific form of social organisation. I propose now +to leave the classificatory system for a moment and inquire whether +another system of denoting and classifying relationships may not +similarly be shown to be determined by social conditions. The system I +shall consider is our own. Let us examine this system in its relation +to the form of social organisation prevalent among ourselves. + +Just as among most peoples of rude culture the clan or other +exogamous group is the essential unit of social organisation, so +among ourselves this social unit is the family, using this term for +the group consisting of a man, his wife, and their children. If we +examine our terms of relationship, we find that those applied to +individual persons and those used in a narrow and well-defined sense +are just those in which the family is intimately concerned. The terms +father, mother, husband and wife, brother and sister, are limited to +members of the family of the speaker, and the terms father-, mother-, +brother-, and sister-in-law to the members of the family of the wife +or husband in the same narrowly restricted sense. Similarly, the +terms grandfather and grandmother are limited to the parents of the +father and mother, while the terms grandson and granddaughter are +only used of the families of the children in the narrow sense. The +terms uncle and aunt, nephew and niece, are used in a less restricted +sense, but even these terms are only used of persons who stand in a +close relation to the family of the speaker. We have only one term +used with anything approaching the wide connotation of classificatory +terms of relationship, and this term is used for a group of relatives +who have as their chief feature in common that they are altogether +outside the proper circle of the family and have no social obligations +or privileges. They are as eligible for marriage as any other members +of the community, and only in the very special cases I considered in +the first lecture are they brought into any kind of legal relation. +The dependence of our own use of terms of relationship on the social +institution of the family seems to me so obvious that I find it +difficult to understand how anyone who has considered these terms +can put forward the view that the terminology of relationship is not +socially conditioned. It seems to me that we have only to have the +proposition stated that the classificatory system and our own are the +outcome of the social institutions of the clan and family respectively +for the social causation of such terminology to become conspicuous. I +find it difficult to understand why it has not long before this been +universally recognised. I do not think we can have a better example +of the confusion and prejudice which have been allowed to envelop the +subject through the unfortunate introduction of the problem of the +primitive promiscuity or monogamy of mankind. It is not necessary to +have an expert knowledge of the classificatory system. It is only +necessary to consider the terms we have used almost from our cradles +in relation to their social setting to see how the terminology of +relationship has been determined by that setting. + +This brief study of our own terms of relationship leads me to speak +about the name by which our system is generally known. Morgan called +it the "descriptive system," and this term has been generally adopted. +I believe, however, that it is wholly inappropriate. Those terms which +apply to one person and to one person only may be called descriptive +if you please, though even here the use does not seem very happy. When +we pass beyond these, however, our terms are no whit more descriptive +than those of the classificatory system. We speak of a grandfather, +not of a father's father or a mother's father, only distinguishing +grandfathers in this manner when it is necessary to supplement our +customary terminology by more exact description. Similarly, we speak +of a brother-in-law, and only in exceptional circumstances do we use +forms of language which indicate whether reference is being made to +the brother of the husband or wife or to the husband of a sister. Such +occasional usages do not make our system descriptive, and if they be +held to do so, the classificatory system is just as descriptive as our +own. All those peoples who use the classificatory system are capable +of such exact description of relationship as I have mentioned. Indeed, +classificatory systems are often more descriptive than our own. In +some forms of this system true descriptive terms are found in habitual +use. Thus, in the coastal systems of Fiji the mother's brother is often +called _ngandina_ (_ngane_, sister of a man, and _tina_, mother), this +term being used in place of the _vungo_ already mentioned. Similar +uses of descriptive terms occur in other parts of Melanesia. Thus, in +Santa Cruz the father's sister is called _inwerderde_ (_inwe_, sister, +and _derde_, father). This relative is one for whom Melanesian systems +of relationship not infrequently possess no special designation, and +the use of a descriptive term suggests a recent process which has come +into action in order to denote a relative who had previously lacked any +special designation. + +If "descriptive" is thus an inappropriate name for our own system, +it will be necessary to find another, and I should like boldly to +recognise the direct dependence of its characters on the institution of +the family and to speak of it as the "family system." + +While I thus reject the term "descriptive" as a proper name for the +terminology of relationship with which we are especially familiar, it +does not follow that there may not be systems of denoting relationship +which properly deserve this title. In Samoa a mode of denoting +relatives is often used in which the great majority of the terms are +descriptive. Thus, the only term which I could obtain for the father's +brother's son was _atalii o le uso o le tama_, which is literally "son +of the brother of the father," and there is some reason to suppose +that this descriptive usage has come into vogue owing to the total +inadequacy of the ancient Samoan system to express relationships in +which the peoples are now interested. + +The wide use of such descriptive terms is also found in many systems +of Europe, as in the Celtic languages, in those of Scandinavia, in +Lithuanian and Esthonian.[32] A similar mode of denoting relationships +is found in Semitic languages and among the Shilluks and Dinkas of the +Anglo-Egyptian Sudan, and since it is from these peoples that I have +gained my own experience of descriptive terminology, I propose to take +them as my examples. + +[32] See Tables in Morgan's _Systems ..._, pp. 79-127. + +In the Arabic system of relationship used in Egypt many of the terms +are descriptive; thus, the father's brother being called _'amm_, the +father's brother's wife is _mirat 'ammi_, the father's brother's son +_ibn 'ammi_, and the father's brother's daughter _bint 'ammi_, and +there is a similar usage for the consorts and children of the father's +sister and of the brother and sister of the mother. + +Similarly, many Shilluk terms suggest a descriptive character, the +father's brother being _wa_, the wife of the father's brother is +_chiwa_, the father's brother's son is _uwa_, and his daughter is +_nyuwa_. The father's sister being _waja_, her son and daughter are +_uwaja_ and _nyuwaja_ respectively. Similar descriptive terms are +used by the Dinkas. The father's brother being _walen_, the father's +brother's son is _manwalen_ and his daughter _yanwalen_; the mother's +brother being _ninar_, the mother's brother's son is _manninar_ and his +daughter _yanninar_. + +According to the main thesis of these lectures, these descriptive +usages should own some definite social cause. The descriptive +terminology seems to be particularly definite in the case of cousins, +and it might be suggested that they are dependent, at any rate in part +and in so far as Egypt is concerned, on the prevalence of marriage +with a cousin. Marriages with the daughter of a father's brother or of +a mother's brother are especially orthodox and popular in Egypt, and +different degrees of preference for marriage with different classes of +cousin would produce just such a social need as would have led to the +definite distinction of the different kinds of cousin from one another +by means of descriptive terms. + +It is more probable, however, that the use of descriptive terms in the +languages of the Semites and of the Shilluks and Dinkas has been the +outcome of a definite form of social organisation, viz., that in which +the social unit is neither the family in the narrow sense, nor the +clan, but that body of persons of common descent living in one house or +in some other kind of close association which we call the patriarchal +or extended family, the _Grossfamilie_ of the Germans. It is a feature +of the Semitic and Nilotic systems, not only to distinguish the four +chief categories of cousin, but also the four chief kinds of uncle or +aunt, viz., the father's brother, the father's sister, the mother's +brother and the mother's sister, all of whom are habitually classed +together in our system, while some of them are classed with the father +or mother in the classificatory system. The Semitic and Nilotic +terminology is such as would follow from a form of social organisation +in which the more intimate relationships of the family in the narrow +sense are definitely recognised, but yet certain uncles, aunts, and +cousins are of so much importance as to make it necessary for social +purposes that they shall be denoted exactly. The brothers of the father +and the unmarried sisters of the father would be of the same social +group as the father, while the brothers and unmarried sisters of the +mother would be of a different social group, which would account for +their distinctive nomenclature, while within the social group it would +be necessary to distinguish the father from his brothers. It would be +too cumbrous to call this variety of system after the extended family, +and I suggest that it should be called the "kindred" system. + +Analogy with other parts of the world suggests that all those of the +same generation in the social group formed by the extended family may +once have been classed together under one term, and that, as later +there arose social motives requiring the distinction of different +relatives so classed together, descriptive terms came into use to +make the necessary distinctions. You must please regard this only +as a suggestion. We need far more detailed evidence concerning the +social status of different relatives among the peoples who use these +descriptive terms. Such knowledge as we possess seems to point to the +dependence of the Semitic and Sudanese terminology upon the social +institution of the extended family, just as our own system depends +on the social institution of the family in the narrow sense and the +classificatory system upon the clan. + +If this descriptive mode of nomenclature be thus the outcome of a +social organisation of which the essential element is the extended +family, I need hardly point out how natural it is that we should +find this kind of nomenclature so widely in Europe. The presence of +this descriptive terminology in Celtic and Scandinavian languages, +in Lithuanian and Esthonian, would be examples of the persistence of +a form of nomenclature which had its origin in the kindred of the +extended family. On this view we must believe that, in other languages +of Europe, this mode of nomenclature has gradually been replaced by one +dependent on the social institution of the family in the narrow sense. + +At this point I should like to sum up briefly the position to which +our argument has taken us. I have first shown the dependence of a +number of special features of the classificatory system of relationship +upon special forms of marriage. Then I have shown that certain +broad varieties of the classificatory system are to be referred to +different forms of social organisation and to the different degrees +in which the regulation of marriage by means of clan-exogamy has +been replaced by a mechanism dependent upon kinship or genealogical +relationship. From that I was led to refer the general features of +the classificatory system to the dependence of this system upon the +social unit of the clan as opposed to the family which I believe to +be the basis of our own terminology of relationship. I then pointed +to several features of the classificatory system which suggest that +it arose in that special variety of the clan-organisation in which +a community consists of two exogamous moieties, forming the social +structure usually known as the dual organisation. I considered more +fully the dependence of our own mode of denoting relatives upon the +social institution of the family, and then a study of the descriptive +terminology of relationship has led me to suggest that certain modes of +denoting relationship in Egypt, the Sudan and many European countries +may be examples of a third main variety of system of relationship +which has arisen out of the patriarchal or extended family. We should +thus have three main varieties of system of relationship in place of +the two which have hitherto been recognised, having their origins +respectively in the clan, in the family in the narrow sense, and in +the extended or patriarchal family. These three varieties may be +regarded as genera within each of which are species and varieties +depending upon special social conditions which have arisen within +each kind of social grouping, either as the result of changes within +each form of social organisation or of transitions from one form to +another. We know of a far larger number of such varieties within the +classificatory system than within those due to the two forms of the +family, and this is probably due in some measure to the fact that the +classificatory system is still by far the most widely distributed form +over the earth's surface. Still more important, however, is the fact +that among the peoples who use the classificatory system there is an +infinitely greater variety of social institution, and especially of +forms of marriage, than exist among civilised peoples whose main social +unit, the family, is not one which is capable of any extended range of +variation. The result of the complete survey has been to justify my use +of the classificatory system as the means whereby to demonstrate the +dependence of the terminology of relationship upon social conditions. +It is the great variability of this mode of denoting relatives which +makes it so valuable an instrument for the study of the laws which have +governed the history of that department of language by which mankind +has denoted those who stand in social relations to himself. + + * * * * * + +You may have been wondering whether I am going to say anything about +the merits of the controversy which has till now given to systems of +relationship their chief interest among students of sociology. I have +so far left on one side the subjects which have been the main ground +of controversy ever since the time of Morgan. You will have gathered +that I regard it as a grave misfortune for the science of sociology +that the topics of promiscuity and group-marriage should have been +thrust by Morgan into the prominent place which they have ever since +occupied in the theoretical study of relationship. Even now I should +have liked to leave them on one side on the ground that the evidence +is as yet insufficient to make them profitable subjects for such exact +inquiry as I believe to be the proper business of sociology. Their +very prominence, however, makes it impossible to leave them wholly +unconsidered, but I propose to deal with them very briefly. + +I begin with the question whether the classificatory system of +relationship provides us with any evidence that mankind once possessed +a form of social organisation, or rather such an absence of social +organisation, as would accompany a condition of general promiscuity +in which, if one can speak of marriage at all, marriage was practised +between all and any members of the community, including brothers and +sisters. I can deal with this subject very briefly because I hope to +have succeeded elsewhere in knocking away the support on which the +whole of Morgan's own construction rested. + +Morgan deduced his stage of promiscuity from the Hawaiian system, +which he supposed to be the most primitive form of classificatory +nomenclature. In an article published in 1907 I showed[33] that it +rather represents a late stage in the history of the more ordinary +forms of the classificatory system. My conclusion at that time was +based on the scanty evidence derived from the relatively few Oceanic +systems which had then been recorded, but my work since that article +was written has shown the absolute correctness of my earlier opinion, +which I can now support by a far larger body of evidence than was +available in 1907. It remains possible, however, that the Hawaiian +system may have had its source in promiscuity, even though this +condition be late rather than primitive, but it would be going beyond +the scope of these lectures to deal fully with this subject here. I +cannot forbear, however, from mentioning that Hawaiian promiscuity, +in so far as it existed, was not the condition of the whole people, +but only of the chiefs who alone were allowed to contract brother +and sister marriages, while I have evidence that the avoidance of +brother and sister in Melanesia, which has so often been regarded as +a survival of man's early promiscuity, is capable of a very different +explanation.[34] Our available knowledge, whether derived from features +of the classificatory system or from other social facts, does not +provide one shred of evidence in favour of such a condition as was put +forward by Morgan as the earliest stage of human society, nor is there +any evidence that such promiscuity has ever been the ruling principle +of a people at any later stage of the history of mankind. + +[33] _Anthropological Essays presented to E. B. Tylor_, Oxford, 1907, +p. 309. + +[34] For the full evidence on these topics see my forthcoming book _The +History of Melanesian Society_. + +The subject of group-marriage is one about which I do not find it +possible to speak so dogmatically. It would take me more than another +lecture to deal adequately with the Melanesian evidence alone, and I +must content myself with two remarks. Firstly, I think it desirable +to throw aside the term group-marriage as only confusing the issue, +and to speak rather of a state of organised sexual communism, in which +sexual relations are recognised as orthodox between the men of one +social group and the women of another. Secondly, the classificatory +system has several features which would follow naturally from such a +condition of sexual communism. I have evidence from Melanesia which +places beyond question the former presence of such a condition, with +features of culture which become readily explicable if they be the +survivals of such a state of sexual communism as is suggested by the +terminology of the classificatory system. This evidence comes from +only one part of the world, but it is enough to convince me that we +have no right to dismiss from our minds a state of organised sexual +communism as a feature of the social development of mankind. The wide +distribution of the classificatory system would suggest that this +communism has been very general, but it need not have been universal, +and even if the widespread existence of organised sexual communism be +established, it would not follow that it represents the earliest stage +in the evolution of human society. There are certain features even of +the classificatory system itself which suggest that, if this system be +founded in sexual communism, this communism was not primitive, but grew +out of a condition in which only such ties of kinship were recognised +as would result from the social institution of the family. + +I must be content with this brief reference to the subject. The object +of these lectures is to demonstrate the dependence of the terminology +of relationship upon social conditions, and the dependence of the +classificatory system upon a condition of sexual communism is not +now capable of demonstration. The classificatory mode of denoting +relationship should, however, act as a suggestion and stimulus, and as +a preventative of dogmatic statement in a part of our subject which, in +spite of its entrancing interest, still lies only at the edge of our +slowly spreading circle of exact knowledge. + +In conclusion, I should like to point out briefly some of the lessons +of more general interest which may be learnt from the facts I have +brought before you in these lectures. I hope that one result has been +to convince you of the danger lying in the use of the _reductio ad +absurdum_ argument when dealing with cultures widely different from our +own. In the literature of the subject one often meets the adjectives +"absurd" and "impossible" applied in some cases to social conditions +in which the actual existence of the absurdities or impossibilities +can be demonstrated. I may take as an example the argument of Mr. N. W. +Thomas, which I have already mentioned, in which the classing of the +maternal grandfather with the elder brother by the Dieri is regarded +as reducing to an absurdity the contention that classificatory terms +express ties of kinship. If Mr. Thomas had had a more lively faith in +the social meaning of terms of relationship, he might have been led to +notice that the Dieri marry the granddaughter of a brother, a fact he +appears, in common with many other readers of Howitt, to have missed; +one result of this marriage is to bring about just such a relationship +as Howitt records without a man being his own great-uncle, as is +supposed to be necessary by Mr. Thomas. + +Still another example may be taken from Professor Kroeber. He states +that the classing together of the grandfather and the father-in-law +which is found in the Dakota system, when worked out to its +implications, would lead to the absurd conclusion that marriage with +the mother was once customary among the Sioux. Here again, if Professor +Kroeber had been less imbued with his belief in a purely linguistic +and psychological chain of causation, and had been ready to entertain +the idea that there might be a social meaning, he must have been led +to see that the features of nomenclature in question would follow from +other forms of marriage, and two of these, whatever their apparent +improbability in America, cannot well be called absurd, since they are +known to occur in other parts of the world. Following Riggs, Professor +Kroeber does not specify which kinds of grandfather and father-in-law +are classed together in Dakotan nomenclature, but in the full list +given by Morgan, it is evident that one term is used for the fathers of +both father and mother and for the fathers of both husband and wife. +The classing of the father's father with the wife's father would be a +natural result of marriage with the father's sister, while the common +nomenclature for father's father and husband's father would result from +marriage with the brother's daughter. It is not without significance +that the features of nomenclature which would be the result of one +or other, or of both these marriages, occur in a system which also +bears evidence of the cross-cousin marriage, for these three forms +of marriage occur in conjunction in one part of Melanesia, viz., the +Torres Islands. + +The foregoing instance, together with many others scattered through +these lectures, will have pointed clearly to another lesson. In +the present state of our knowledge a working scheme or hypothesis +has largely to be judged by its utility. A way of regarding social +phenomena which obstructs inquiry and leads people to overlook facts +has its disadvantages, to say the least, while a scheme or hypothesis +which leads people to worry out and discover things which do not lie on +the surface will establish a strong claim on our consideration, even +if it should ultimately turn out to be only the partial truth. I will +give only one instance to illustrate how a belief in the dependence of +the terminology of relationship on forms of marriage might act as a +stimulus to research. + +In a system from the United Provinces recorded by Mr. E. A. H. Blunt +in the Report of the last Indian Census, one term, _bahu_, is used +for the son's wife, for the wife, and for the mother.[35] Mr. Blunt +puts on one side without hesitation the possibility that such common +nomenclature can have been the result of any form of marriage, and +ascribes it to the custom whereby a man and his wife live with the +husband's parents, in consequence of which the son's wife, who is +called _bahu_ by her husband, is also called _bahu_ by everyone else in +the house. The causation of the common nomenclature which is thus put +forward is a possible, perhaps even a probable, explanation. In such a +case we should have a social chain of causation in which the son's wife +is called _bahu_ because she is one of a social group bound together +by the ties of a common habitation. It can do no harm, however, to +bear in mind as an alternative the possibility that the terminology +may have arisen out of a form of marriage. It is evident that the use +of a common term for the wife and the son's wife would follow from a +form of polyandry in which a man and his son have a wife in common. A +further result of this form of marriage would be that the wife of the +son, being also the wife of his father, would have the status of a +mother.[36] We have no evidence for the presence of such a marriage in +India, but our knowledge of the sociology of the more backward peoples +of India is not so complete that we can afford to neglect any clue. The +possibility suggested by the mode of using the term _bahu_ should lead +us to look for other evidence of such a form of polyandry among the +ruder elements of the population of India, of whose social structure +our present knowledge is so fragmentary. + +[35] _Census of India_, 1911, vol. xv., p. 234. + +[36] In such a case the use of the term by other members of the +household, including women, would be the result of a later extension of +meaning. + +Another important result of our study of the terminology of +relationship is that it helps us to understand the proper place of +psychological explanation in sociology. These lectures have largely +been devoted to the demonstration of the failure to explain features +of the terminology of relationship on psychological grounds. If this +demonstration has been successful, it is not because the terminology +of relationship is anything peculiar, differing from other bodies of +sociological facts; it is because in relationship we have to do with +definite and clean-cut facts. The terminology of relationship is only +a specially favourable example by means of which to show the value +of an attitude towards, and mode of treatment of, social facts which +hold good, though less conspicuously, throughout the whole field of +sociology. + +In social, as in all other kinds of human activity, psychological +factors must have an essential part. I have myself in these lectures +pointed to psychological considerations as elements in the problems +with which the sociologist has to deal. These psychological elements +are, however, only concomitants of social processes with which it is +possible to deal apart from their psychological aspect. It has been +the task of these lectures to refer the social facts of relationship +to antecedent social conditions, and I believe that this is the proper +method of sociology. Even at the present time, however, it is possible +to support sociological arguments by means of considerations provided +by psychological motives, and the assistance thus rendered to sociology +will become far greater as the science of social psychology advances. + +This is, however, a process very different from the interpolation of +psychological facts as links in the chain of causation connecting +social antecedents with social consequences. It is in no spirit of +hostility to social psychology, but in the hope that it may help us to +understand its proper place in the study of social institutions that +I venture to put forward the method followed in these lectures as one +proper to the science of sociology.[37] + +[37] See also "Survival in Sociology," _Sociological Review_, 1913, +vol. vi., p. 293. I hope shortly to deal more fully with the relations +between sociology and social psychology. + +It may be that there will be those who will accept my main position, +but will urge that these lectures have been devoted to the criticism +of an extreme position, the position taken up by Professor Kroeber. +They may say that they have never believed in the purely psychological +causation of the terminology of relationship. In reply to such an +attitude I can only express my conviction that the paper of Professor +Kroeber is only the explicit and clear statement of an attitude which +is implicit in the work of nearly all, if not all, the opponents of +Morgan since McLennan. Whether they have themselves recognised it +or not, I believe that it has been this underlying attitude towards +sociological problems which has prevented them from seeing what is +good in Morgan's work, from sifting out the chaff from the wheat of +his argument, and from recognising how great is the importance to the +science of sociology of the body of facts which Morgan was the first to +collect and study. I feel that we owe a debt of gratitude to Professor +Kroeber for having brought the matter into the open and for having +presented, as a clear issue, a fundamental problem of the methods of +sociology. + +Lastly, I should like to point out how rigorous and exact has been the +process of the determination of the nomenclature of relationship by +social conditions which has been demonstrated in these lectures. We +have here a case in which the principle of determinism applies with a +rigour and definiteness equal to that of any of the exact sciences. +According to my scheme, not only has the general character of systems +of relationship been strictly determined by social conditions, but +every detail of these systems has also been so determined. Even so +small and apparently insignificant a feature as the classing of the +sister-in-law with the sister has been found to lead back to a definite +social condition arising out of the regulation of marriage and of +sexual relations. If sociology is to become a science fit to rank +with other sciences, it must, like them, be rigorously deterministic. +Social phenomena do not come into being of themselves. The proposition +that we class two relatives together in nomenclature because the +relationships are similar is, if it stand alone, nothing more than a +form of words. It is incumbent on those who believe in the importance +of the psychological similarity of social phenomena to show in what +the supposed similarity consists and how it has come about--in other +words, how it has been determined. It has been my chief object in these +lectures to show that, in so far as such similarities exist in the case +of relationship, they have been determined by social conditions. Only +by attention to this aim throughout the whole field of social phenomena +can we hope to rid sociology of the reproach, so often heard, that it +is not a science; only thus can we refute those who go still further +and claim that it can never be a science. + + + + +INDEX + + + "Absurd" in sociology, 32, 87. + + America, North, 10, 18, 49, 55. + + Anaiteum, 22. + + Aniwa, 22. + + Assiniboin, 51. + + Australia, 11, 32. + + Avoidance, 85. + + + Banks Is., 12, 16, 28, 42, 53, 61, 68. + + Bellamy, R. L., 56. + + Blunt, E. A. H., 90. + + Bougainville I., 40. + + Brother-in-law, functions of, 12. + + Buin, 40. + + + Canarese, 47. + + Celtic terms, 78, 81. + + Cherokees, 53. + + Chiefs, 85. + + Choctas, 53. + + Christianity, 30. + + Clan, 67, 71, 74. + + Classes, matrimonial, 32, 39. + + Classificatory relationship, 2, 4, 19, 83. + + Codrington, Dr., 28, 30, 68. + + Communism in property, 12; + sexual, 62, 86. + + Concomitant variations, method of, 70. + + "Creek" Indians, 53. + + Crees, 50, 55. + + Cross-cousins, 20, 28; + _see_ marriage. + + "Crow" Indians, 53. + + + Dakotas, 51, 88. + + Descent, 34, 39, 73. + + Descriptive system, 76; + terms, 77, 81. + + Determinism, 7, 93. + + Dieri, 32, 37, 88. + + Dinkas, 78. + + Dorsey, J. O., 51. + + Dual organisation, 32, 34, 58, 67, 72, 82. + + + Eddystone I., 68, 70. + + Egidi, Father, 16. + + Egypt, 78, 79. + + English terms of relationship, 13, 74. + + Eromanga, 22. + + Esthonia, 78, 81. + + Exchange of brothers and sisters, 43. + + Exogamy, 68, 72. + + + Family, 74, 77, 87; + extended, 79, 81. + + Father's sister, functions of, 16. + + Field, Rev. J. T., 57. + + Fiji, 22, 31, 39, 77. + + Fison, Rev. L., 26. + + Florida, 45, 69. + + Freire-Marreco, Miss B., 53, 55. + + Functions of relatives, 6, 11, 12, 15. + + + Gait, E. A., 47. + + Genealogical method, 23, 31. + + Genealogical relationship, 68, 70. + + Gillen, F. J., 11. + + Gonds, 26. + + Group-marriage, 6, 86. + + Guadalcanar, 23, 45. + + + Haidahs, 54. + + Hawaiian Is., 15, 66, 68; + system, 66, 84. + + Head, sanctity of, 12. + + Hopi Indians, 55. + + Howitt, A. W., 11, 88. + + + India, 18, 26, 47, 90. + + + Kindred, 80. + + Kinship, 1, 67, 82. + + Kohler, J., 8, 19. + + Kroeber, A. L., 9, 25, 52, 60, 62, 64, 88, 93. + + Kuni, 16. + + + Lithuania, 78, 81. + + + McLennan, J. F., 6, 17. + + Malayalam, 47. + + "Malayan" system, 65, 68. + + Maori, 66. + + Marriage, 1, 60; + between brother and sister, 85; + by exchange, 43; + group-, 6, 86; + regulation of, 67; + with brother's daughter, 89; + with brother's granddaughter, 34, 37, 56; + with cousin, 79; + with cross-cousin, 20, 39, 43, 47, 49, 54; + with deceased wife's sister, 65; + with father's sister, 89; + with wife of father's father, 40, 57; + with wife of mother's brother, 30, 33, 52. + + Massim, 56. + + Mbau, 22. + + Mekeo, 16, 70. + + Melanesia, 14, 19, 28, 45, 52, 61, 66, 77, 85, 89. + + Morgan, Lewis, 4, 10, 18, 26, 47, 50, 65, 84, 93. + + Mother's brother, functions of, 15. + + + New Hebrides, 22, 31, 68. + + New Guinea, 16, 56, 69. + + Niue, 15. + + + Pantutun, John, 33, 37. + + Pawnees, 53, 54. + + Pedigrees, 31, 70. + + Pentecost I., 31. + + Polyandry, 7, 90. + + Polynesia, 15, 61, 66. + + Prediction, 26. + + Promiscuity, 6, 75, 84. + + Psychology, 10, 17, 24, 29, 38, 52, 62, 63, 66, 91, 94. + + Pueblo Indians, 53. + + + "Red Knives" Indians, 49. + + Riggs, Rev. S. R., 51, 89. + + Roth, W., 11. + + + Salutations, 7, 10. + + Samoa, 77. + + San Cristoval, 46. + + Santa Cruz, 15, 68, 77. + + Scandinavia, 78, 81. + + Seligmann, C. G., 56. + + Semitic terms, 78, 81. + + Shilluks, 78. + + Sioux, 53, 54, 88. + + Sladen Trust, 14. + + Sociology, 10, 26, 70, 84, 92, 94. + + Solomon Is., 15, 23, 45, 67, 68. + + Spencer, B., 11. + + Sudan, 78, 81. + + Survival, 39, 43, 46, 48, 59, 86, 92. + + Swanton, J. R., 55. + + + Tamil, 47. + + Tanna, 22. + + Telegu, 47. + + Tewa Indians, 53. + + Thomas, N. W., 32, 88. + + Thurnwald, R., 40. + + Tikopia, 15, 67. + + Todas, 49. + + Tonga, 15, 67. + + Torres Is., 89. + + Torres Straits, 11, 44. + + Trobriand Is., 55. + + Tubetube, 57. + + + Wagawaga, 56, 58. + + Wedau, 58. + + Widow, 12, 30, 41. + + + "Yellow Knife" Indians, 49. + + Ysabel, 46. + + +GARDEN CITY PRESS LIMITED, PRINTERS, LETCHWORTH. + + + + +LIST OF STUDIES IN ECONOMICS & POLITICAL SCIENCE. + +_A Series of Monographs by Lecturers and Students connected with the +London School of Economics and Political Science._ + + +EDITED BY THE + +DIRECTOR OF THE LONDON SCHOOL OF ECONOMICS AND POLITICAL SCIENCE. + +~1. The History of Local Rates in England.~ The substance of five +lectures given at the School in November and December, 1895. By EDWIN +CANNAN, M.A., LL.D. 1896; second, enlarged edition, 1912; xv and 215 +pp., Crown 8vo, cloth. 3s. 6d. net. + + _P. S. King and Son._ + +~2. Select Documents Illustrating the History of Trade Unionism.~ +I.--THE TAILORING TRADE. By F. W. GALTON. With a Preface by SIDNEY +WEBB, LL.B. 1896; 242 pp., Cr. 8vo, cloth. 5s. + + _P. S. King and Son._ + +~3. German Social Democracy.~ Six lectures delivered at the School in +February and March, 1896. By the Hon. BERTRAND RUSSELL, B.A., late +Fellow of Trinity College, Cambridge. With an Appendix on Social +Democracy and the Woman Question in Germany. By ALYS RUSSELL, B.A. +1896; 204 pp., Cr. 8vo, cloth. 3s. 6d. + + _P. S. King and Son._ + +~4. The Referendum in Switzerland.~ By M. SIMON DEPLOIGE, University of +Louvain. With a Letter on the Referendum in Belgium by M. J. VAN DEN +HEUVEL, Professor of International Law in the University of Louvain. +Translated by C. P. TREVELYAN, M.A., Trinity College, Cambridge, and +edited with Notes, Introduction, Bibliography, and Appendices, by +LILIAN TOMN (Mrs. Knowles), of Girton College, Cambridge, Research +Student at the School. 1898; x and 344 pp., Cr. 8vo, cloth, 7s. 6d. + + _P. S. King and Son._ + +~5. The Economic Policy of Colbert.~ By A. J. SARGENT, M.A., Senior +Hulme Exhibitioner, Brasenose College, Oxford; and Whately Prizeman, +1897, Trinity College, Dublin. 1899; viii and 138 pp., Cr. 8vo, cloth. +2s. 6d. + + _P. S. King and Son._ + +~6. Local Variations in Wages.~ (The Adam Smith Prize, Cambridge +University, 1898.) By F. W. LAWRENCE, M.A., Fellow of Trinity College, +Cambridge. 1899; viii and 90 pp., with Index and 18 Maps and Diagrams. +Quarto, 11 in. by 8-1/2 in., cloth. 8s. 6d. + + _Longmans, Green and Co._ + +~7. The Receipt Roll of the Exchequer for Michaelmas Term of the +Thirty-first Year of Henry II. (1185).~ A unique fragment transcribed +and edited by the Class in Palaeography and Diplomatic, under the +supervision of the Lecturer, HUBERT HALL, F.S.A., of H.M. Public Record +Office. With thirty-one Facsimile Plates in Collotype and Parallel +readings from the contemporary Pipe Roll. 1899; vii and 37 pp.; Folio, +15-1/2 in. by 11-1/2 in., in green cloth; 3 Copies left. Apply to the +Director of the London School of Economics. + +~8. Elements of Statistics.~ By ARTHUR L. BOWLEY, M.A., Sc.D., F.S.S., +Cobden and Adam Smith Prizeman, Cambridge; Guy Silver Medallist of the +Royal Statistical Society; Newmarch Lecturer, 1897-98. 500 pp., and 40 +Diagrams, Demy 8vo, cloth. 1901; Third edition, 1907; viii and 336 pp. +10s. 6d. net. + + _P. S. King and Son._ + +~9. The Place of Compensation in Temperance Reform.~ By C. P. SANGER, +M.A., late Fellow of Trinity College, Cambridge; Barrister-at-Law. +1901; viii and 136 pp., Crown 8vo, cloth, 2s. 6d. net. + + _P. S. King and Son._ + +~10. A History of Factory Legislation.~ By B. L. HUTCHINS and A. +HARRISON (Mrs. Spencer), B.A., D.Sc. (Econ.), London. With a Preface +by SIDNEY WEBB, LL.B. 1903; new and revised edition, 1911, xvi and 298 +pp., Demy 8vo, cloth. 6s. net. + + _P. S. King and Son._ + +~11. The Pipe Roll of the Exchequer of the See of Winchester for +the Fourth Year of the Episcopate of Peter Des Roches (1207).~ +Transcribed and edited from the original Roll in the possession of +the Ecclesiastical Commissioners by the Class in Palaeography and +Diplomatic, under the supervision of the Lecturer, HUBERT HALL, F.S.A., +of H.M. Public Record Office. With a frontispiece giving a Facsimile +of the Roll. 1903; xlviii and 100 pp., Folio, 13-1/2 in. by 8-1/2 in., +green cloth. 15s. net. + + _P. S. King and Son._ + +~12. Self-Government in Canada and How it was Achieved. The Story of +Lord Durham's Report.~ By F. BRADSHAW, B.A., D.Sc. (Econ.), London; +Senior Hulme Exhibitioner, Brasenose College, Oxford. 1903; 414 pp., +Demy 8vo, cloth. 3s. 6d. net. + + _P. S. King and Son._ + +~13. History of the Commercial and Financial Relations Between England +and Ireland from the Period of the Restoration.~ By ALICE EFFIE MURRAY +(Mrs. Radice), D.Sc. (Econ.), former Student at Girton College, +Cambridge; Research Student of the London School of Economics and +Political Science. 1903; 486 pp., Demy 8vo, cloth. 3s. 6d. net. + + _P. S. King and Son._ + +~14. The English Peasantry and the Enclosure of Common Fields.~ By +GILBERT SLATER, M.A., St. John's College, Cambridge; D.Sc. (Econ.), +London. 1906; 337 pp., Demy 8vo, cloth. 10s. 6d. net. + + _Constable and Co._ + +~15. A History of the English Agricultural Labourer.~ By DR. W. +HASBACH, Professor of Economics in the University of Kiel. Translated +from the Second Edition (1908), by RUTH KENYON. Introduction by SIDNEY +WEBB, LL.B. 1908; xvi and 470 pp., Demy 8vo, cloth. 7s. 6d. net. + + _P. S. King and Son._ + +~16. A Colonial Autocracy: New South Wales under Governor Macquarie +(1810-1821).~ By MARION PHILLIPS, B.A., Melbourne, D.Sc. (Econ.), +London. 1909; xxiii and 336 pp., Demy 8vo, cloth. 10s. 6d. net. + + _P. S. King and Son._ + +~17. India and the Tariff Problem.~ By H. B. LEES SMITH, M.A., M.P. +1909; 120 pp., Crown 8vo, cloth. 3s. 6d. net. + + _Constable and Co._ + +~18. Practical Notes on the Management of Elections.~ Three Lectures +delivered at the School in November, 1909, by ELLIS T. POWELL, LL.B., +B.Sc. (Econ.), Fellow of the Royal Historical and Royal Economic +Societies, of the Inner Temple, Barrister-at-Law. 1909; 52 pp., 8vo, +paper. 1s. 6d. net. + + _P. S. King and Son._ + +~19. The Political Development of Japan.~ By G. E. UYEHARA, B.A., +Washington, D.Sc. (Econ.), London. xxiv and 296 pp., Demy 8vo, cloth. +1910. 8s. 6d. net. + + _Constable and Co._ + +~20. National and Local Finance.~ By J. WATSON GRICE, D.Sc. (Econ.), +London. Preface by SIDNEY WEBB, LL.B. 1910; 428 pp., Demy 8vo, cloth. +10s. 6d. net. + + _P. S. King and Son._ + +~21. An Example of Communal Currency.~ Facts about the Guernsey +Market-house. By J. THEODORE HARRIS, B.A., with an Introduction by +SIDNEY WEBB, LL.B., 1911; xiv and 62 pp., Crown 8vo, cloth, 1s. 6d. +net; paper, 1s. net. + + _P. S. King and Son._ + +~22. Municipal Origins.~ History of Private Bill Legislation. By F. H. +SPENCER, LL.B., D.Sc. (Econ.); with a Preface by Sir EDWARD CLARKE, +K.C. 1911; xi and 333 pp., Demy 8vo, cloth. 10s. 6d. net. + + _Constable and Co._ + +~23. Seasonal Trades.~ By Various Authors. With an Introduction by +SIDNEY WEBB. Edited by SIDNEY WEBB, LL.B., and ARNOLD FREEMAN, M.A. +1912; xi and 410 pp., Demy 8vo, cloth. 7s. 6d. net. + + _Constable and Co._ + +~24. Grants in Aid.~ A Criticism and a Proposal. By SIDNEY WEBB, LL.B. +1911; vii and 135 pp., Demy 8vo, cloth. 5s. net. + + _Longmans, Green and Co._ + +~25. The Panama Canal: A Study in International Law.~ By H. ARIAS, +B.A., LL.D. 1911; xiv and 188 pp., 2 maps, bibliography, Demy 8vo, +cloth. 10s. 6d. net. + + _P. S. King and Co._ + +~26. Combination Among Railway Companies.~ By W. A. ROBERTSON, B.A. +1912; 105 pp., Demy 8vo, cloth. 1s. 6d. net; paper, 1s. net. + + _Constable and Co._ + +~27. War and the Private Citizen~: Studies in International Law. By A. +PEARCE HIGGINS, M.A., LL.D.; with Introductory Note by the Rt. Hon. +ARTHUR COHEN, K.C. 1912; xvi and 200 pp., Demy 8vo, cloth. 5s. net. + + _P. S. King and Son._ + +~28. Life in an English Village~: An Economic and Historical Survey of +the Parish of Corsley, in Wiltshire. By M. F. DAVIES. 1909; xiii and +319 pp., illustrations, bibliography, Demy 8vo, cloth. 10s. 6d. net. + + _T. Fisher Unwin._ + +~29. English Apprenticeship and Child Labour~: A History. By O. JOCELYN +DUNLOP, D.Sc. (Econ.), London; with a Supplementary Section on the +Modern Problem of Juvenile Labour, by the Author and R. D. DENMAN, M.P. +1912; pp. 390, bibliography, Demy 8vo, cloth. 10s. 6d. net. + + _T. Fisher Unwin._ + +~30. Origin of Property and the Formation of the Village Community.~ By +J. ST. LEWINSKI, D.Ec.Sc., Brussels. 1913; xi. and 71 pp., Demy 8vo, +cloth. 3s. 6d. net. + + _Constable and Co._ + +~31. The Modern Tendency toward Industrial Combination in some Spheres +of British Industry.~ By G. R. CARTER, M.A. 1913; xi and 386 pp., Demy +8vo, cloth. 6s. net. + + _Constable and Co._ + +~32. Tariffs at Work~: An outline of Practical Tariff Administration. +By JOHN HEDLEY HIGGINSON, B.Sc. (Econ.), Mitchell Student of the +University of London; Cobden Prizeman and Silver Medallist. 1913; 150 +pp., Crown 8vo, cloth. 2s. net. + + _P. S. King and Son._ + +~33. English Taxation, 1640-1799.~ An Essay on Policy and Opinion. By +WILLIAM KENNEDY, M.A., Shaw Research Student at the London School of +Economics and Political Science. 1913; 200 pp., Demy 8vo. 7s. 6d. net. + + _G. Bell and Sons._ + +~34. Emigration from the United Kingdom to North America, 1763-1912.~ +By STANLEY C. JOHNSON, M.A., Cambridge. 1913; xvi and 387 pp., Demy +8vo, cloth. 6s. net. + + _G. Routledge and Sons._ + +~35. The Financing of the Hundred Years' War from 1337 to 1360.~ By +SCHUYLER B. TERRY. 1914; xvi and 199 pp., Demy 8vo, cloth. 6s. net. + + _Constable and Co._ + +~36. Social Organisation and Kinship.~ By W. H. R. RIVERS, M.D., +F.R.S., Fellow of St. John's College, Cambridge. 1913; viii and 96 pp., +Demy 8vo, cloth. 2s. 6d. net. + + _Constable and Co._ + + +_Series of Bibliographies by Students of the School._ + +~1. A Bibliography of Unemployment and the Unemployed.~ By F. ISABEL +TAYLOR, B.Sc. (Econ.), London. Preface by SIDNEY WEBB, LL.B. 1909; xix +and 71 pp., Demy 8vo, cloth, 2s. net; paper, 1s. 6d. net. + + _P. S. King and Son._ + +~2. Two Select Bibliographies of Mediaeval Historical Study.~ By +MARGARET F. MOORE, M.A.; with Preface and Appendix by HUBERT HALL, +F.S.A. 1912; pp. 185, Demy 8vo, cloth. 5s. net. + + _Constable and Co._ + +~3. Bibliography of Roads.~ By DOROTHY BALLEN: An enlarged and revised +edition of a similar work compiled by Mr. and Mrs. Sidney Webb in 1906. +With an introduction by Sir George Gibb. 1914; xviii. and 281 pp., Demy +8vo, cloth. 15s. net. + + _P. S. King and Son._ + +~4. A Select Bibliography for the Study, Sources, and Literature of +English Mediaeval Economic History.~ Edited by HUBERT HALL, F.S.A. 1913; +xiii and 350 pp., Demy 8vo, cloth. 6s. net. + + _P. S. King and Son._ + + +_Series of Geographical Studies._ + +~1. The Reigate Sheet of the One-inch Ordnance Survey.~ A Study in the +Geography of the Surrey Hills. By ELLEN SMITH. Introduction by H. J. +Mackinder, M.A., M.P. 1910; xix and 110 pp., 6 maps, 23 illustrations. +Crown 8vo, cloth. 5s. net. + + _A. and C. Black._ + +~2. The Highlands of South-West Surrey.~ A Geographical Study in +Sand and Clay. By E. C. MATTHEWS. 1911; viii and 124 pp., 7 maps, 8 +illustrations, 8vo, cloth. 5s. net. + + _A. and C. Black._ + + +_Series of Contour Maps of Critical Areas._ + +~1. The Hudson-Mohawk Gap.~ Prepared by the Diagram Company from a map +by B. B. Dickinson. 1913; 1 sheet 18 in. by 22-1/2 in. Scale 20 miles +to 1 inch. 6d. net; post free, folded 7d., rolled 9d. + + _Sifton, Praed and Co._ + + + + +Transcriber's Note + + +The following apparent errors have been corrected: + +p. 8 (note) "Rechtswiss" changed to "Rechtswiss." + +p. 20 "now becomes" changed to "now become" + +Advertisement "contemproary" changed to "contemporary" + +Advertisement "was Achieved" changed to "was Achieved." + +Advertisement "Commerical and Financial" changed to "Commercial and +Financial" + + + + + + +End of Project Gutenberg's Kinship and Social Organisation, by W. H. R. Rivers + +*** END OF THIS PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK KINSHIP AND SOCIAL ORGANISATION *** + +***** This file should be named 44728.txt or 44728.zip ***** +This and all associated files of various formats will be found in: + http://www.gutenberg.org/4/4/7/2/44728/ + +Produced by Henry Flower and the Online Distributed +Proofreading Team at http://www.pgdp.net (This file was +produced from images generously made available by The +Internet Archive/Canadian Libraries) + + +Updated editions will replace the previous one--the old editions +will be renamed. + +Creating the works from public domain print editions means that no +one owns a United States copyright in these works, so the Foundation +(and you!) can copy and distribute it in the United States without +permission and without paying copyright royalties. Special rules, +set forth in the General Terms of Use part of this license, apply to +copying and distributing Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works to +protect the PROJECT GUTENBERG-tm concept and trademark. Project +Gutenberg is a registered trademark, and may not be used if you +charge for the eBooks, unless you receive specific permission. If you +do not charge anything for copies of this eBook, complying with the +rules is very easy. You may use this eBook for nearly any purpose +such as creation of derivative works, reports, performances and +research. They may be modified and printed and given away--you may do +practically ANYTHING with public domain eBooks. Redistribution is +subject to the trademark license, especially commercial +redistribution. + + + +*** START: FULL LICENSE *** + +THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG LICENSE +PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU DISTRIBUTE OR USE THIS WORK + +To protect the Project Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting the free +distribution of electronic works, by using or distributing this work +(or any other work associated in any way with the phrase "Project +Gutenberg"), you agree to comply with all the terms of the Full Project +Gutenberg-tm License (available with this file or online at +http://gutenberg.org/license). + + +Section 1. General Terms of Use and Redistributing Project Gutenberg-tm +electronic works + +1.A. By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg-tm +electronic work, you indicate that you have read, understand, agree to +and accept all the terms of this license and intellectual property +(trademark/copyright) agreement. If you do not agree to abide by all +the terms of this agreement, you must cease using and return or destroy +all copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in your possession. +If you paid a fee for obtaining a copy of or access to a Project +Gutenberg-tm electronic work and you do not agree to be bound by the +terms of this agreement, you may obtain a refund from the person or +entity to whom you paid the fee as set forth in paragraph 1.E.8. + +1.B. "Project Gutenberg" is a registered trademark. It may only be +used on or associated in any way with an electronic work by people who +agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement. There are a few +things that you can do with most Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works +even without complying with the full terms of this agreement. See +paragraph 1.C below. There are a lot of things you can do with Project +Gutenberg-tm electronic works if you follow the terms of this agreement +and help preserve free future access to Project Gutenberg-tm electronic +works. See paragraph 1.E below. + +1.C. The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation ("the Foundation" +or PGLAF), owns a compilation copyright in the collection of Project +Gutenberg-tm electronic works. Nearly all the individual works in the +collection are in the public domain in the United States. If an +individual work is in the public domain in the United States and you are +located in the United States, we do not claim a right to prevent you from +copying, distributing, performing, displaying or creating derivative +works based on the work as long as all references to Project Gutenberg +are removed. Of course, we hope that you will support the Project +Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting free access to electronic works by +freely sharing Project Gutenberg-tm works in compliance with the terms of +this agreement for keeping the Project Gutenberg-tm name associated with +the work. You can easily comply with the terms of this agreement by +keeping this work in the same format with its attached full Project +Gutenberg-tm License when you share it without charge with others. + +1.D. The copyright laws of the place where you are located also govern +what you can do with this work. Copyright laws in most countries are in +a constant state of change. If you are outside the United States, check +the laws of your country in addition to the terms of this agreement +before downloading, copying, displaying, performing, distributing or +creating derivative works based on this work or any other Project +Gutenberg-tm work. The Foundation makes no representations concerning +the copyright status of any work in any country outside the United +States. + +1.E. Unless you have removed all references to Project Gutenberg: + +1.E.1. The following sentence, with active links to, or other immediate +access to, the full Project Gutenberg-tm License must appear prominently +whenever any copy of a Project Gutenberg-tm work (any work on which the +phrase "Project Gutenberg" appears, or with which the phrase "Project +Gutenberg" is associated) is accessed, displayed, performed, viewed, +copied or distributed: + +This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere at no cost and with +almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or +re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included +with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org/license + +1.E.2. If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is derived +from the public domain (does not contain a notice indicating that it is +posted with permission of the copyright holder), the work can be copied +and distributed to anyone in the United States without paying any fees +or charges. If you are redistributing or providing access to a work +with the phrase "Project Gutenberg" associated with or appearing on the +work, you must comply either with the requirements of paragraphs 1.E.1 +through 1.E.7 or obtain permission for the use of the work and the +Project Gutenberg-tm trademark as set forth in paragraphs 1.E.8 or +1.E.9. + +1.E.3. If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is posted +with the permission of the copyright holder, your use and distribution +must comply with both paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 and any additional +terms imposed by the copyright holder. Additional terms will be linked +to the Project Gutenberg-tm License for all works posted with the +permission of the copyright holder found at the beginning of this work. + +1.E.4. Do not unlink or detach or remove the full Project Gutenberg-tm +License terms from this work, or any files containing a part of this +work or any other work associated with Project Gutenberg-tm. + +1.E.5. Do not copy, display, perform, distribute or redistribute this +electronic work, or any part of this electronic work, without +prominently displaying the sentence set forth in paragraph 1.E.1 with +active links or immediate access to the full terms of the Project +Gutenberg-tm License. + +1.E.6. You may convert to and distribute this work in any binary, +compressed, marked up, nonproprietary or proprietary form, including any +word processing or hypertext form. However, if you provide access to or +distribute copies of a Project Gutenberg-tm work in a format other than +"Plain Vanilla ASCII" or other format used in the official version +posted on the official Project Gutenberg-tm web site (www.gutenberg.org), +you must, at no additional cost, fee or expense to the user, provide a +copy, a means of exporting a copy, or a means of obtaining a copy upon +request, of the work in its original "Plain Vanilla ASCII" or other +form. Any alternate format must include the full Project Gutenberg-tm +License as specified in paragraph 1.E.1. + +1.E.7. Do not charge a fee for access to, viewing, displaying, +performing, copying or distributing any Project Gutenberg-tm works +unless you comply with paragraph 1.E.8 or 1.E.9. + +1.E.8. You may charge a reasonable fee for copies of or providing +access to or distributing Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works provided +that + +- You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you derive from + the use of Project Gutenberg-tm works calculated using the method + you already use to calculate your applicable taxes. The fee is + owed to the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm trademark, but he + has agreed to donate royalties under this paragraph to the + Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation. Royalty payments + must be paid within 60 days following each date on which you + prepare (or are legally required to prepare) your periodic tax + returns. Royalty payments should be clearly marked as such and + sent to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation at the + address specified in Section 4, "Information about donations to + the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation." + +- You provide a full refund of any money paid by a user who notifies + you in writing (or by e-mail) within 30 days of receipt that s/he + does not agree to the terms of the full Project Gutenberg-tm + License. You must require such a user to return or + destroy all copies of the works possessed in a physical medium + and discontinue all use of and all access to other copies of + Project Gutenberg-tm works. + +- You provide, in accordance with paragraph 1.F.3, a full refund of any + money paid for a work or a replacement copy, if a defect in the + electronic work is discovered and reported to you within 90 days + of receipt of the work. + +- You comply with all other terms of this agreement for free + distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm works. + +1.E.9. If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a Project Gutenberg-tm +electronic work or group of works on different terms than are set +forth in this agreement, you must obtain permission in writing from +both the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation and Michael +Hart, the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm trademark. Contact the +Foundation as set forth in Section 3 below. + +1.F. + +1.F.1. Project Gutenberg volunteers and employees expend considerable +effort to identify, do copyright research on, transcribe and proofread +public domain works in creating the Project Gutenberg-tm +collection. Despite these efforts, Project Gutenberg-tm electronic +works, and the medium on which they may be stored, may contain +"Defects," such as, but not limited to, incomplete, inaccurate or +corrupt data, transcription errors, a copyright or other intellectual +property infringement, a defective or damaged disk or other medium, a +computer virus, or computer codes that damage or cannot be read by +your equipment. + +1.F.2. LIMITED WARRANTY, DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES - Except for the "Right +of Replacement or Refund" described in paragraph 1.F.3, the Project +Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the owner of the Project +Gutenberg-tm trademark, and any other party distributing a Project +Gutenberg-tm electronic work under this agreement, disclaim all +liability to you for damages, costs and expenses, including legal +fees. YOU AGREE THAT YOU HAVE NO REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE, STRICT +LIABILITY, BREACH OF WARRANTY OR BREACH OF CONTRACT EXCEPT THOSE +PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH 1.F.3. YOU AGREE THAT THE FOUNDATION, THE +TRADEMARK OWNER, AND ANY DISTRIBUTOR UNDER THIS AGREEMENT WILL NOT BE +LIABLE TO YOU FOR ACTUAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE OR +INCIDENTAL DAMAGES EVEN IF YOU GIVE NOTICE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH +DAMAGE. + +1.F.3. LIMITED RIGHT OF REPLACEMENT OR REFUND - If you discover a +defect in this electronic work within 90 days of receiving it, you can +receive a refund of the money (if any) you paid for it by sending a +written explanation to the person you received the work from. If you +received the work on a physical medium, you must return the medium with +your written explanation. The person or entity that provided you with +the defective work may elect to provide a replacement copy in lieu of a +refund. If you received the work electronically, the person or entity +providing it to you may choose to give you a second opportunity to +receive the work electronically in lieu of a refund. If the second copy +is also defective, you may demand a refund in writing without further +opportunities to fix the problem. + +1.F.4. Except for the limited right of replacement or refund set forth +in paragraph 1.F.3, this work is provided to you 'AS-IS' WITH NO OTHER +WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO +WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PURPOSE. + +1.F.5. Some states do not allow disclaimers of certain implied +warranties or the exclusion or limitation of certain types of damages. +If any disclaimer or limitation set forth in this agreement violates the +law of the state applicable to this agreement, the agreement shall be +interpreted to make the maximum disclaimer or limitation permitted by +the applicable state law. The invalidity or unenforceability of any +provision of this agreement shall not void the remaining provisions. + +1.F.6. INDEMNITY - You agree to indemnify and hold the Foundation, the +trademark owner, any agent or employee of the Foundation, anyone +providing copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in accordance +with this agreement, and any volunteers associated with the production, +promotion and distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works, +harmless from all liability, costs and expenses, including legal fees, +that arise directly or indirectly from any of the following which you do +or cause to occur: (a) distribution of this or any Project Gutenberg-tm +work, (b) alteration, modification, or additions or deletions to any +Project Gutenberg-tm work, and (c) any Defect you cause. + + +Section 2. Information about the Mission of Project Gutenberg-tm + +Project Gutenberg-tm is synonymous with the free distribution of +electronic works in formats readable by the widest variety of computers +including obsolete, old, middle-aged and new computers. It exists +because of the efforts of hundreds of volunteers and donations from +people in all walks of life. + +Volunteers and financial support to provide volunteers with the +assistance they need, are critical to reaching Project Gutenberg-tm's +goals and ensuring that the Project Gutenberg-tm collection will +remain freely available for generations to come. In 2001, the Project +Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation was created to provide a secure +and permanent future for Project Gutenberg-tm and future generations. +To learn more about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation +and how your efforts and donations can help, see Sections 3 and 4 +and the Foundation web page at http://www.pglaf.org. + + +Section 3. Information about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive +Foundation + +The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation is a non profit +501(c)(3) educational corporation organized under the laws of the +state of Mississippi and granted tax exempt status by the Internal +Revenue Service. The Foundation's EIN or federal tax identification +number is 64-6221541. Its 501(c)(3) letter is posted at +http://pglaf.org/fundraising. Contributions to the Project Gutenberg +Literary Archive Foundation are tax deductible to the full extent +permitted by U.S. federal laws and your state's laws. + +The Foundation's principal office is located at 4557 Melan Dr. S. +Fairbanks, AK, 99712., but its volunteers and employees are scattered +throughout numerous locations. Its business office is located at +809 North 1500 West, Salt Lake City, UT 84116, (801) 596-1887, email +business@pglaf.org. Email contact links and up to date contact +information can be found at the Foundation's web site and official +page at http://pglaf.org + +For additional contact information: + Dr. Gregory B. Newby + Chief Executive and Director + gbnewby@pglaf.org + + +Section 4. Information about Donations to the Project Gutenberg +Literary Archive Foundation + +Project Gutenberg-tm depends upon and cannot survive without wide +spread public support and donations to carry out its mission of +increasing the number of public domain and licensed works that can be +freely distributed in machine readable form accessible by the widest +array of equipment including outdated equipment. Many small donations +($1 to $5,000) are particularly important to maintaining tax exempt +status with the IRS. + +The Foundation is committed to complying with the laws regulating +charities and charitable donations in all 50 states of the United +States. Compliance requirements are not uniform and it takes a +considerable effort, much paperwork and many fees to meet and keep up +with these requirements. We do not solicit donations in locations +where we have not received written confirmation of compliance. To +SEND DONATIONS or determine the status of compliance for any +particular state visit http://pglaf.org + +While we cannot and do not solicit contributions from states where we +have not met the solicitation requirements, we know of no prohibition +against accepting unsolicited donations from donors in such states who +approach us with offers to donate. + +International donations are gratefully accepted, but we cannot make +any statements concerning tax treatment of donations received from +outside the United States. U.S. laws alone swamp our small staff. + +Please check the Project Gutenberg Web pages for current donation +methods and addresses. Donations are accepted in a number of other +ways including checks, online payments and credit card donations. +To donate, please visit: http://pglaf.org/donate + + +Section 5. General Information About Project Gutenberg-tm electronic +works. + +Professor Michael S. Hart is the originator of the Project Gutenberg-tm +concept of a library of electronic works that could be freely shared +with anyone. For thirty years, he produced and distributed Project +Gutenberg-tm eBooks with only a loose network of volunteer support. + + +Project Gutenberg-tm eBooks are often created from several printed +editions, all of which are confirmed as Public Domain in the U.S. +unless a copyright notice is included. Thus, we do not necessarily +keep eBooks in compliance with any particular paper edition. + + +Most people start at our Web site which has the main PG search facility: + + http://www.gutenberg.org + +This Web site includes information about Project Gutenberg-tm, +including how to make donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary +Archive Foundation, how to help produce our new eBooks, and how to +subscribe to our email newsletter to hear about new eBooks. |