54. The Dravidian Kinship Terminology as an Expression of Marriage Author(s): L. Dumont Source: Man, Vol. 53 (Mar., 1953), pp.

34-39 Published by: Royal Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2794868 . Accessed: 27/05/2013 13:29
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Royal Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Man.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 200.136.217.186 on Mon, 27 May 2013 13:29:20 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Nos. 53. 54

Man
3

MARCH, I953

parchment, as has been suggested by Fran,oise Henry.25 Mr. C. H. Roberts hasexpressedthe following opinion: 'If we may assumethe existence of pre-Christian"books" in Ireland, we should expect them to be in the roll form. Equallyone would expect the codex form to be introduced by the earliestChristianmissionaries.'On the other hand it is strange that Theodor Birt does not refer at all to this unusualway of holding a roll.26The posturemay, however, have a symbolical meaning as yet unknown to us. The contrast between the lifelike sculptureof the seated ecclesiastic and the other three stereotyped figures is striking. I should like to suggest as a hypothesis that the latter are copies of seventh-centurysculptures.Similar sets of figures may have existed in other more accessible churches,where they suffereddestructionwhilst the White Islandfigures survived owing to their isolation. If this was the case, a local sculptor may have been commissioned to add furtherportraitsof persons closely associatedwith this church. This would (i) explain the single head (Plate Cd, left) and the rejected stone mentioned above; and (ii) bridge the time gap between the seventh-century original statuesand the younger text of The Tripartite Life. The question now ariseswhether the three seventh-century sculptures, or copies of them, may not even have inspired some of the above quoted passages in The Tripartite Life. We cannot, of course, offer any definite answer, but may at least seem justified in adducing those texts as pertinent evidence. The compilers of The Tripartite Life may, indeed, have remembered that the figures of White Island, or possibly similar copies, or the originals themselves were representationsof St. Patrick, King Loiguire and King Enna.27
I Eric

The Preliminary Survey of the AncientMonuments of Northern

Ireland (Belfast, I940), p. I48.

4 A.J. Butler, TheAncient Coptic Churches ofEgypt(Oxford, I884), Vol. II, fig. 20, p. IIO. 5 IrishMonasticism (Dublin, I93I), p. i85. 6 Ed. tr. Wh. Stokes (London, i887), pp. 75, 567. 7 The use of pairsof animals in substitution ritualis alsomentioned by ProfessorS. H. Hooke, 'The Theory and Practiceof Substitution', Vetusrestamentum, Vol. II, No. I, pp. 6-8. 8 The Michaelmas Sheep Story,' Tripartite Life, op. cit.,pp. ss7f.; James F. Kenney, The Sources of the EarlyHistoryof Ireland(New York, I929), p. 350. 9 'The Iconographyof St. Patrick,'Down and Connor Historical Society's journal,Vol. VII (Belfast,I936). IO Op. cit., pp. i83, 326. I" Ibid.,pp. 35, i64, 22I. I2J. A. MacCulloch,'Tonsure,'E.R.E., Vol. XII, p. 386a. I3 'The Form of the CelticTonsure,'P.S.A.S., Vol. XXX, p. 326. I4 I5

Op. cit., Vol. II, p. 229.

H. F. McClintock, Old Irish and HighlandDress, 2nd ed. (Dundalk,I950), Plate 8; Sexton, op. cit., figs. 48, 52, 55. i6 Op. cit., p. 79. I7 TheBanquet of Dun-nan-Gedh(Dublin, I842), note on pp. 38f. I8 The Life of St. Gall (London, I927), p, 73, note I. '9 Op. cit., pp. II4, I20f, 476-9.
Ibid., p. 249. 2nd ed. (Leipzig, I884), note on p. 42, quoted from Morgenblatt, i853, No. 34, p. 4I5. See alsoJ.R.S.A.I., Vol. XXX, p. 237,
20

21

T. J. Westropp, 'The Clog an Oir, or Bell Shrineof Scattery.'The Secretary of the Royal IrishAcademykindly informedme by letter that 'the Minutes of the R.I.A. for iS March, igig, contain three pagesrelatingto the history of the bell. ...' 22Adolf Mahr, Christian Art in Ireland(Dublin, I932), plate i8,
No. 5. 23 Op. cit., p. 383. 24 Op. cit., p. 358.

Notes H. L. Sexton, Irish Figure Sculptures (Portland, Maine,

1946), p. 299. 2 Ibid.,p. 298; the Revd. D. O'DriscollinJ.R.S.A.I., Vol. LXXII, pp. ii6ff.; R. A. S. Macalister,The Archa?ology of Ireland, 2nd ed. (London, 1949), p. 358.

IrishArt (London I940), p. I0o. Die Buchrolle in derKunst(Leipzig,I907). 27 We should regard the squatting female figure (Plate Cd, and hope that the originaland probably centre) as a Sheela-na-Gig, paganmeaningof this whole group of femalestatueswill some day be fully explained.I am greatlyindebtedfor advice in the preparakomuald Bauerreiss, tion of thisarticleto Father O.S.B., of Munich, and to ProfessorI. LI. Foster, Sir John L. Myres and Mr. C. H. Roberts of Oxford.
25

26

THE DRAVIDIAN KINSHIP TERMINOLOGY EXPRESSION OF MARRIAGE*

by
L. DUMONT Institute of SocialAnthropology, University of Oxford

AS AN

This paper'springsfrom two sources.Field acquaintance with Dravidian kinship terminology made me feel very strongly its systematic,logical character; I could not help thinking that it centred in marriage, and that it should be possible to expressthose two featuresin a simple formula. But, in trying to do so, a considerableresistance from currentanthropologicalideas was experienced. Therefore a few generaland criticalremarkssuggest themselves.
* A paper and ofAnthropological Congress theIVInternational before read by and here published I952, Sciences,Vienna,September, Ethnological With 4 text figures Committee. ofthe Organizing permission

54

PRELIMINARY

Its main features are well known: classificationaccording to generations, distinction of sex, distinction of two kinds of relatives inside certain generations, distinction of age. Since Morgan, who based his second or 'punaluan' family on the Dravidian and the Seneca-Iroquoissystems, this type of terminology, known as Seneca or DakotaIroquoistype, and one of the most widely spread,has challenged anthropologists. Rivers, studying the Dravidian system, saw that its main feature was the distinction of

34

This content downloaded from 200.136.217.186 on Mon, 27 May 2013 13:29:20 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

MARCH,

1953

Man

No. 54

relatively simple terminology. As late as 1947 we find maintainedthe denomination of 'bifurcate merging' type
introduced previously with the explanation: ' . . . bifur-

andrightlyconnected parallel andcrosscousins, someof its -I I features with cross-cousin marriage, but, to accountfor it F M's Br asa whole,he turned a hypothetical towards previous stage of dualorganization. Lesssatisfactory descriptions, when and it is very likely that the principle of the opposition lies found in modern literature, witness to thedifficulty scholars in that relationship.Possibly our preconceived ideas resist in becomingfamiliarwith this importantand such a view, but should they not give way if the facts imencounter
pose it? This relationshipwe shall call an alliancerelationship, as the relationshiparisingbetween two male (or two female) persons and their siblings of the same sex, when a 'sister' (a 'brother') of one is marriedto the other:

cate, becausepaternal and maternal kin are distinguished, mergingas far as thereis a partialmerging with the parents, a definitionobviously inaccurateand misleading,as the distinction is not between paternaland maternalsides, which are, on the contrary, treatedexactly according to the same principle,as alreadymade clear by Rivers. Even when the 'principleof the solidarity of the sibling group' is emphasized, we return to the same confusion, since the paternal auntis assimilatedwith the father, the maternaluncle with the mother.2 All this would requirean explanation,and some of what I believe to be the factors producing these misconceptions will be found below. But perhapsit may be said in general that the terminology was not consideredfor a moment in itself but in terms of other aspectsof kinship, in fact related to but differentfrom it; at the same time it was still felt as irrationaland one hastened to explain without accurately describing.This is so true that when Kirchhoff,on the contrary, only wants to describe it, he comes close to the explanation.He states,in his type D, that there is 'a common word for fatherand father'sbrother,but anotherword for mother's brother' (etc., in two columns).3 Let us proceed from this point to some furtherobservations.Here, in the father'sgeneration, there are two kinds, and two kinds and we should only, of male relatives.They are two classes, not, because the father and the mother's brother respectively fall into these two classes,by stressingthem in fact substitutethe idea of a dyadic relationshipfor that of a class, as we do if we suppose, for example, 'mother's brother' to be the basic meaning, and the others to be extensions.4 Moreover, the 'mother's brother' is also the 'father-inlaw,' and the common assumptionthat the affinalmeaning is here secondary, the cognatic meaning being primary, is based upon nothing but the common notion that one's kinshipposition necessarily precedesone's marriage,an idea quite out ofplace here, as only the analysisofthe system can reveal the real meaning of the category. All these arbitrary assumptionsarise from our own way of thinking, unconsciouslysuperimposed upon the native way of thinking. We must,therefore,refuseto indulge them and keep before us the question: what is the principle of the opposition between those two classesof relatives exemplified by what we call fatherand mother'sbrother?Provided that we consider this opposition as standingin its own right and do not assumethat the principle of the opposition lies in the relation with the Ego, and provided that we view it against the background of the whole system (see note 7 below), we can find some approach to the answer. Briefly, in this case the relationship between father and mother's brother is: 35

or, more generally: and

O[ =]o.
It expresses the fact that if marriage creates a relation between two personsof differentsexes, it connectsalso their groups. As an equivalent formula I shall speak also of two men (or women) having an alliancerelationshipas male (or female) affines. There is another way of expressingthe same fact, which, although not altogetherwrong, is I think less accurate,and the criticism of which will throw some more light on the anthropologist'sunconsciousresistanceto the classificatory idea. It is possible to extend the distinctionbetween-parallel and cross cousinsand to speakof paralleland crossrelatives, the principle of the distinctionbeing that 'there is, or there is not, a change of sex when passingfrom the direct line to the collateral line.' I followed this doctrine in a monographicstudy of kinship in a Tamil-speakingcommunity.5 But the whole passage, although tending to a synthetic view, is, I am afraid,obscure.Moreover, the formula is not satisfactoryfor two reasons: (i) in spite of the fact that the natives do, when tracingrelationships, passfrom one line to another, these are not among their basic categoriesand are not in the least expressedin their theory: (ii) the system has much to do with marriage, and this should appear more clearly,if possible,in its formula. In fact, it is the anthropologist alone who is responsiblefor the introduction of this unsatisfactoryconcept of a 'change of sex'; he does so becausehe wants to trace through a relative of the opposite sex a relationshipwhich the native conceives-when he thinks classificatorily-in a different manner. For instance we introduce the mother as a link between Ego and his mother'sbrother, where in fact the latteris just opposed to the father. Two errors converge here: (i) the 'extension' tendency confusesa classwith the actualmother's brother, (ii) the introduction of the latter's compounded, western, descriptivename bringsin the mother, who is only relevant at this level as the link by which the relation between father and mother's brother comes into existence. If, however, we agree to consider the terms for the two sexes separately (as is normal in a system where the terms for females are distinct, and not mere feminine forms of the terms for males), and in a classificatoryperspective, the difficultyvanishes.

This content downloaded from 200.136.217.186 on Mon, 27 May 2013 13:29:20 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

No. 54

Man

MARCH, I953

After this lengthy but necessarydiscussion,we can now define the problem.
LIMITS AND NATURE OF THE ANALYSIS

Since Morgan, it has been recognized that the terminological systems used by most of the communities speaking one of the four written Dravidian languages (round about 70 million people) are very much alike. What does this amount to, when each language uses differentterms, when againin each language the actuallist of terms differsslightly from one group to another, and when, moreover, only a few such lists are recordedfrom among the vast number of those which exist? Is it possible to abstractanything like a common terminological system? It is, thanks to the systematic characterof a remarkablyconstant structure.And it will not be denied that the attempt will be logical rather than statistical. Not all groups conform to the perfect schema outlined below-for instance, some Tamil Brahmins alter the system considerably by the introduction of a number of individualizingterms, or Nayar at the present day do not distinguishbetween cousins (accordingto Mlle Biardeau)-but on the whole most lists can be said to centre in a common scheme, from which they differ slightly and individually. Both the Tamil lists and the published Kanareseexamples illustrateit almost perfectly.6 The limits of the analysiswill be drawn close to the vital nucleus of the system: I shall consider only the common classificatoryfeatureswithin a range of live generations. One important point is that the nature of the task compels us to considerthe distinctivenessof the terms denoting the classes, quite irrespective of their concrete linguistic form. This is fortunate, because it allows the analysis to develop at the basic level of the structure of the system, whereas such analysesusually become mixed up with linguistic considerations as well as with considerations of attitudesor institutionswhich belong to a differentlevel of analysisand which are excluded here by the very diversity of the background. The need to stress the cross-cousin marriagewill appear the more striking as our analysisdevelops. A brief explanation is needed of the expression used above: 'the distinctiveness of the terms denoting the of the terms is the main matter, classes.'The distinctiveness as they are used to distinguish (i.e. to oppose) classes.But conversely, linguistic differences which are not used to oppose classesare irrelevanthere, and it is for this reason that I add the words 'denoting the classes.'For instance, different words applied to exactly the same relatives are irrelevant, or again secondary differences within a class (obtainedby affixation, etc.) are irrelevantin so far as they do not alterits unity (becausefor instancethe classword or root is kept in all). Again, linguistic resemblances may exist between terms of different classes, in so far as the classes are not in direct opposition. All such facts are of interest, and may even be found to be common to all our terminologies; but they do not form part of the basicstructure. (Considerationsof space preclude these points being developed and exemplified here as they should be.) Our situation is similar to that of the phoneticist: just as he 36

retains among phonetic particularitiesonly those which differentiatemeanings, we here retain from linguistic parrelatives,and even ticularitiesonly those which differentiate (for the time being) the fundamental classes of relatives only. The system as just defined classifiesall relatives of five to grandsoninto i6 dassesby generationsfrom grandfather using i6 distinctive (setsof) terms. The generationsare as a rule absolutely distinguished; there is no assimilation of relatives belonging to different generations. Additionally, Ego's generation is split into two by distinguishing relatives older and younger than Ego: this distinction of age will be treatedas analogousto the distinctionof generations. (The distinctionof age in other generations,e.g. the father's, is marked,not by distinctterms, but by prefixed adjectives; hence it is not relevant here, as stated in our previous point). Some of the terms have a masculineand a feminine form, some have only one form, either masculine or feminine, and this is the rule wherever the central, critical distinction which follows is fully maintained. In each generation (or age) group, the relativesof the same sex are distinguishedinto two classes.In the chart (fig. i), every class is designated by a letter, from A to P, and they are distributedsymmetrically to stressthe opposition.
Generation grandfather father B

0
A (+fem.A')

E >Ego 1<Ego J

H M

K N( +fem-N')

son
grandson

IO[=k+N]*( +fem.O')

P(+fem. P')

The means * For instance 'marriage.' in Tamil,wherek probably hereas an N and0 is stressed between connexion linguistic exception. FIG. I B the 'fathers,'C the 'mothers,' A are the 'grandfathers,' E the 'mother's sisters'and 'mothers-in-law,' D the 'father's F the 'brothers'older than and 'fathers-in-law,' brothers' olderand I andM, 'male crosscousins,' Ego,J the younger, younger;G, K, 'sisters,'and H, L, 'femalecrosscousins' older and younger;N the 'sons' (fem. for the respectively 0 the 'sons-in-laws'(fem.for the 'daughters'daughters'); in-law').

Although, for the reader's convenience, I give the ordinary equivalents, we shall not rely upon them in the least, but on the contrary try to deduce the meaning of each class from its situation in the whole. Some qualificationsare necessary,as regardsthe value of the chart. ClassD has a tendency to split among the Tamil groups that I studied,but the cleavageis never the same, and

This content downloaded from 200.136.217.186 on Mon, 27 May 2013 13:29:20 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

MARCH, I953

Man

No. 54

thetwo termson whichit is basedarelargelyinterchangeable,so thatalready in Tamilit is not possible to takeit asa generalfeature.In the region HILM I had to choose between two variants, the othervariantnot applyingdistinction of age to this group.Both will be found equally consistent. For N and 0 this is the Tamilsituation, while elsewhere the central distinction andthe distinction of sex aremorein evidence. We now proceedto discover,or ratherconfirm,the nature of the principle of the central opposition, and thus definethe fundamental meaningof eachclass(as distinct fromitslinguistic meaning; seeabove),andto tryto understand the way in whichthe different distinctions arecombined,andthe rangeof theirapplication.
FATHER S GENERATION

two abstractoppositionsoperatingcrosswise: (i) comin generation;(ii) communityand munityand difference in kin, i.e. kin andalliance. difference The latter,in which is broughtto light by opposition the categoryof alliance to thekincategory, is of paramount importance. Compared with Morgan's Malayan system,wherethe two categories it emphasizes the importanceof are not distinguished, alliance,i.e. of marriageas a relationbetween groups. Moreoverboth ideasare given together,andspringfrom no alliance one another:no kin withoutalliance, without kin.

A few more remarksmay be added. (i) We understand why there are no special terms (at the present level) for affmes; the basic meaning of the terms for the 'cross' category is affinal-my mother's brother is essentially my father's affme. (ii) We have in fact taken the two oppositions as a way leadingfrom Ego to the father and from the father to the mother's brother; are we then perhaps not entitled to speak of a structuresensustricto?But here lies (flg. 2). Fatherand Ego are relatedby a link which excludes the characteristicof a kinship terminology as compared andwhichI proposeto call 'kin link.' One quali- with other kinship groupings, that it is a constellation alliance, sex mustbe added:whereas the 'fathers' revolving around the Ego. The only differencefrom cusfication regarding male sibling tomary views on the subjectlies in the way we have taken, and the 'mother'sbrothers'are respectively groups,the sex of Ego is irrelevant (the termsfor father, not the way through the mother, as suggested by our own of thesex of Ego). Thetwo vocabulary, but, I believe, the native way, as imposed by etc.,beingthesameirrespective to oneanother in thekin groupareone the terminology. (iii) What is here called kin has, of generations opposed of their course, nothing to do with actual groups, being only an of male siblings,and the generation generation bothmaleandfemale.In otherwords,the distinc- abstractionarisingfrom the oppositions; this again centres children, conditionof the distinc- in Ego, and is only a part of what the terminology suggests tion of sex, if it is the preliminary of generation; as such, because we had to abstract it on the male side; to the distinction tion of kin, is unrelated turning to female relatives, we shall find its feminine thisshouldbe remembered. If we now consider thetwo oppositions between counterpart. The whole could be called 'terminological together Ego, his fatherandhis mother's brother,we see thatEgo kin' to avoid confusion, and opposed to 'terminological in kin anddifferent aresimilar in generation, affines'. This is only a framework which is used and andthe father andmother's brother aresimilar in generation shaped by each group according to its particularinstituwhile father in kin (i.e. are allied).Each of the two ele- tions. and different In the same generation,we can deal exactly as above with andkin) servesunderits negative(difments (generation formasprinciple of one opposition, andunder the opposition between the 'mother' and the 'father's ferentiating) sister,'and connect it with the opposition between Ego and of the other. formasthe basis its positive(uniting) The two concrete not only haveone termin Ego's mother. We shall leave out the intermediary link, oppositions is builtupon this time the father, as a mere agent bringing about (and common(thefather), but theircolncatenation 37

We have seen already that the alliance derelationship finesthe mother's brotherby reference to the father.But thefather himself is defined by reference to theEgo. Letus considernow the natureof the latterrelationand both together. In doing so we shouldnot forgetthat,although we have taken the particular,genealogicalfather as in factwith the 'fathers' example, we aredealing asa class. In the relation, or as I preferto say, in the opposition, betweenEgo andEgo'sfather, therearetwo elements, one of whichis commonto them both, while the otherdifferentiatesthem; the elementwhichis commonto both terms I call the 'basis'of the opposition,the of the opposition differentiating elementI callthe 'principle'of the opposiis clear: it is the distinction tion.Theprinciple two between But whatis the basis,whatis it that successive generations. is commonto Ego andEgo'sfather? Obviously, theanswer liesin the context:whatthey havein commonis opposed to what makestheir relation(morepreciselythe father's relation)with the mother'sbrother,i.e. to the alliance

. ..... ...

Father *A

,,

I's brother

distinction of Kin (alliance) distinction of generation

*"f

1*

SERVICE DESSIN DU MUSEE DE L'HOMME

FIG. 2

This content downloaded from 200.136.217.186 on Mon, 27 May 2013 13:29:20 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

No. 54

Man

MARCH, I953

hencecontained in) the alliance relationship betweenthe two women.Thekin grouparising herewi be formedof a generation of femalesiblings,the mothers(opposedto femaleaffines), tlhcir andof the generation of theirchildren of both sexes.This kin categoryis not different from the preceding one; it is the same,opposed to alliance as above, thlough we takeanother view of it in accordance with the distinction of sexesin the system.In orderto insistupon theclassificatory character, we give here (fig. 3) a generalized schema;a similarone could,of course, be drawnfor males.

is observed. regulation marriage sameasto saythata certain in the relation,one marriage to maintain Theoretically, of that is enough,but the moremarriages eachgeneration will be. The relationship the alliance type occur,the firmer for thatis the totalformula andcomplete, mostimmediate In fact,whatwe of anydescription. marriage' 'cross-cousin is nothingbut marriage to callcross-cousin areaccustomed relationthe alliance the perfectformulafor perpetuating to the next and so makingthe ship from one generation and alliancean enduringinstitution-a very particular characand logical a very general a fact of for name queer and customary ter. Indeed,it is only the anthropologist's alliancein terms of kin, expressing peculiarvocabulary, it. of revealing thissimpletruthinstead which conceals
OTHER GENERATIONS

KID

OQ Li

of genHeratio distinction

[j

(= ALLIANCE REPRESENTS
FIG.

)o Or(

=)

in othergenerations How canwe in our turnreproduce If the alliance what we said in the father'sgeneration? the generation to be similar, may be supposed relationship will be different. relationship (or marriage cross-cousin generation, Inthe grandfather's link between an affmal leadsone to suppose an equivaleht) and this is the very reasonwhy Ego's two grandfathers, and why thereis normally they cannotbe distinguished, only one term for both of them, for both are kin in one is kin in another:motheras well asfather way, andaffmes who haveat the same to the Ego, 4ndso aretheirfathers, one so thatwe may consider relationship, time an alliance B as or, equally, of themA askin, andthe otherB asaffme, kin and A as affine: the two categoriesmerge in that of kin doesnot applyto it. andthe distinction generation allianceworks The same may be said about grandsons: for (two or) threegenerations of opposition asa principle only, whereasall relativesmerge in the fifth and the
first.7 There is no theoretical difficulty in Ego's son's generation, but rather a practical one: in Tamil at least, the alliance opposition weakens (the basis is emphasized by the use of the same word, with the addition of a prefix on one side, ratheras with 'son' and 'son-in-law'), and at the same time the sex opposition disappears('daughter' is the feminine of 'son'). This is consistent, but I can offer no structuralexplanation, although there is probably a common background. In Ego's generation (males), something interestinghappens if we try to apply the same procedureas in the father's generation: on one side the alliance opposition is present, the male affinesbeing sister'shusbandand wife's brotheras well as sons of the father's(male) affinesand of the mother's (female) affmes. On the other side, the generation opposition vanishes, as Ego and his brothersmight be considered indifferently, but a new principle is invoked in order to replace as it were the waning principle, i.e. relative age is distinguished, and the generation is split into two halves under Ego's older brother and Ego's younger brother. The two distinctions(generationand age), one of which relieves the other, have a common backgroundof age connotation and are closely connected.8 38

Having ended the part of the demonstration which is most likely to arouse controversy,and before extending it to the other generations,we may pausehere and get a first glimpse of the whole. There will be no difficulty, as one can imagine, in showing that Ego's 'cross cousins' are essentially Ego's affines, just as the 'mother's brother' proved to be essentiallythe father'saffme. This means that the alliance which we considered horizontally in one generation acquiresa new, a vertical dimension, and runs through generations.
ALLIANCE AS AN ENDURING INSTITUTION: CROSS-COUSIN

MAIRIAGE

It is not another alliance,but one and the same relationship transmittedfrom one generationto the next, inherited; what we have consideredup to now as an alliancerelationship was ouly a horizontal section of it. And could it be opposed to kin if it did not transcendgenerations?It is this alliance as an enduring institution that is embedded in the terminology, that provides it with its fundamental and characteristic opposition. But to say that an alliancerelationshipis inherited is the

This content downloaded from 200.136.217.186 on Mon, 27 May 2013 13:29:20 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

MARCHr,1953

Man

No. 54

Now we can proceed with the elder brother as with the father:he is opposed to Ego, as older, and he is opposed to the 'cross cousin, older than Ego' as a sibling to an affine. The same for the younger brother, opposed to a 'younger crosscousin' (fig. 4a), but we here crossthe generationaxis of the structure,and the age order between Ego and his kin is inverted. As previously stated, our chart gives for the affineshere only one of the two variants actually found. The other variantpresentsno distinctionof age among the affmesand has only one term for males equivalent to HL. For this we can account very simply: in that variant, Ego's generation is taken as a whole, the male affine is opposed directly to Ego, and the age distinction, although introduced among brothers,does not replace structurallythe generation distinction, and therefore, is not extended to the affines (fig. 4b).

The third distinction (which alone is in no way biological) is the most important; the system embodies a sociological theory of marriage taken in the form of an institution following the generations, and supposes-as well as favours-the rule of marrying a cross cousin as a means of maintainingit. Hence also the fact, well preserved in Indian groups, that the two categoriesof kin and affines comprehend all relatives without any third category. This may be understoodwithout resortingto dual organization; the opposition between kin and aflmes constitutesa whole -the affme of my affme is my brother-marriage is in a sense the whole of society, which it unites, and at the same time separatesin two from the point of view of one Ego.9 No wonder, then, if India makes it the paramountceremony, and perhapsit is also an explanationfor the stability and vitality of the Dravidian terminology which has puzzled many anthropologistssince Morgan.
Notes wish to expressmy thanksto ProfessorEvans-Pritchard for his discussion of this paper,andto D. Pocock, for his help in its preparation. The structuralapproach, although different, is largely inen linguistique fluencedby Cl. Levi-Strauss, 'L'Analysestructurale et en anthropologie,' Word,New York, Vol. I, No. 2, August, I945. For a structuralapproachto attitudes,see E. E. Evans-Pritchard, 'The Study of Kinship,'MAN, I929, I48, and I932, 7. 2 Lewis H. Morgan, AncientSociety,London, I877, pp. 424-52; W. H. R. Rivers, Kinshipand SocialOrganization, London, I9I4, pp. 47-9, 73; see also 'The Marriageof Cross Cousins in India,' J.R.As.Soc., I907, pp. 61I-40. 'Bifurcate-merging': R. H. Lowie, 'A Note on Relationship Terminologies,'Amer.Anthrop., I928, pp. 265f.; cf. G. P. Murdock, a Test of five Theories,'Amer.Anthrop., 'Bifurcate-Merging, I947, pp. 56-68. 'Solidarity of the Sibling Group': A. R. Radcliffe-Brown, in AfricanSystemsof KinshipandMarriage, Introduction,p. 25. 3 P. Kirchhoff, 'Verwandtschaftsbezeichnungen u. Verwandtenheirat,'Zeits.fur Ethnol.,Vol. LXIV (I932), pp. 4I-72; cf Lowie, Social Organization(I948), London, I950, p. 63. 4 For a strong protest againstthis kind of 'extension' see A. M. Hocart, 'Kinship Systems,' Anthropos, Vol. XXXII (I937), in TheLife-giving Myth,London (Methuen), PP. 545-5I (reprinted
II I952,

AHt

EG O

........................... EGO

.I

.I

(a)
FIG. 4

(b)

Moreover, it is in this part that the actual terminologies differmost from our chart. Severalfactorsare at work, one of which is. of a classificatorynature. It is a tendency to stressthe relative sex of the person compared to the Ego, as is quite naturalwhere prospective mates are found. This tendency combinesin various ways with the elder-younger distinction, and the matter is still more complicated by other factors, so that it requiresa special treatment. In the preceding paragraphwe have already anticipated the classification of female relatives, which should be extended from the mother's to the other generations.This is not necessary,as the structureis symmetrical (with the exceptionjust mentioned).

p. I73).

CONCLUSION

I have shown, I hope, that the Dravidiankinshipterminology, and with it other terminologies of the same type, can be considered in its broad features as springing from the combination in precise configurationsof four principlesof opposition: distinction of generation (qualified as an orderedscale), distinctionof sex, distinctionof kin identical with alliance relationship,and distinction of age. 39

5 Formulafrom Cl. Levi-Strauss, Les Structures Elementairesde la Paris (P.U.F.), I949, p. i65. I hope that my emphasison Parente', marriagewill be found in keeping with the generalinspirationof that work. L. Dumont, 'Kinshipand Allianceamong the Pramalai Kallar,'EasternAnthrop.Lucknow, Vol. IV, No. i., Sept.-Nov. (I950-I), pp. I-26 (but with many misprints); see pp. 5-I2 as a first attemptin the presentdirection. 6 Most completeareMorgan'slists (Systems,.pp. 5i8f.) for Tamil, in Dumont, Telugu andKanarese. Referencesto recentmonographs loc. cit. (not restrictedto written languages,but see for Kanarese Srinivas,Marriage.. ., for MalayalamAiyappan,Nayadis... and Iravas... .). Listsof 'common' terms, unspecifiedand unlocalized, arefound in grammars, etc. I have takenhereinto accountlistsfrom severalgroups in Tamil, to be published. 7 This featureis fundamental, and our analysisrestslargely upon it. The whole structure is differentwhen grandsonand grandfather are identified, as in Kariera(with two terms for each). 8 The close connexion between age and generationin the structure may constitute the basis of an important exception to the generationprinciple, ratherof a diachronicnature, as stressedby Mrs. I. Karvein a study to be published(oralcommunication). 9 This does not happenalways,but only when certainconditions are present.

This content downloaded from 200.136.217.186 on Mon, 27 May 2013 13:29:20 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions