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 [email protected]. . 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 have a symbolical meaning as yet unknown to us. H.186 on Mon.I.I950).has challenged anthropologists. 7 The use of pairsof animals in substitution ritualis alsomentioned by ProfessorS. I7 TheBanquet of Dun-nan-Gedh(Dublin. p. James F. and to ProfessorI. Old Irish and HighlandDress. Vol.217.R.I. Stokes (London. Christian Art in Ireland(Dublin. . TheAncient Coptic Churches ofEgypt(Oxford. note on p. 38f.'P. 54 Man 3 MARCH.. XXX. Wh... Die Buchrolle in derKunst(Leipzig. Sexton. but may at least seem justified in adducing those texts as pertinent evidence..I. i85. Equallyone would expect the codex form to be introduced by the earliestChristianmissionaries. 35. Patrick. p.. Roberts of Oxford. Vol. of course. 53. If this was the case.. IO Op. S. II4.'Tonsure. p. Rivers.. 358. I927).Vienna. J. No. figs. pp. Maine. 9 'The Iconographyof St.'The Secretary of the Royal IrishAcademykindly informedme by letter that 'the Minutes of the R. King Loiguire and King Enna. C. ofthe Organizing permission 54 PRELIMINARY Its main features are well known: classificationaccording to generations. p. Sir John L.I am greatlyindebtedfor advice in the preparakomuald Bauerreiss. offer any definite answer. I should like to suggest as a hypothesis that the latter are copies of seventh-centurysculptures. The Sources of the EarlyHistoryof Ireland(New York. 326. p. 27 We should regard the squatting female figure (Plate Cd. Vetusrestamentum. of Munich. 52. Westropp. op. 75.. I93I). 6-8. H. studying the Dravidian system. i6 Op. 2nd ed. cit. 79. paganmeaningof this whole group of femalestatueswill some day be fully explained. Vol. this type of terminology. 358.26The posturemay. I884). I4 I5 Op. Patrick. I929). p.. (London. DUMONT Institute of SocialAnthropology. 4I5. p. Sexton. left) and the rejected stone mentioned above. or Bell Shrineof Scattery. however. 4 A. in trying to do so. and (ii) bridge the time gap between the seventh-century original statuesand the younger text of The Tripartite Life. 'The Theory and Practiceof Substitution'. p. p. pp.. LI. a considerableresistance from currentanthropologicalideas was experienced. contain three pagesrelatingto the history of the bell. No.A. the Revd.R. MacCulloch. p. 34.27 I Eric The Preliminary Survey of the AncientMonuments of Northern Ireland (Belfast. I932).where they suffereddestructionwhilst the White Islandfigures survived owing to their isolation. Vol. tr. as has been suggested by Fran. Vol.R. But. We cannot. op. Notes H.A. The compilers of The Tripartite Life may. cit.S. tion of thisarticleto Father O. pp. cit.The Archa?ology of Ireland. C. p. I" Ibid. igig. 5 IrishMonasticism (Dublin. i887). 249.. (Leipzig. indeed. 326. cit. p. 8 The Michaelmas Sheep Story.25 Mr. and that it should be possible to expressthose two featuresin a simple formula. Myres and Mr. 5.pp. known as Seneca or DakotaIroquoistype. 383. I20f. 48. plate i8.Vol. 20 21 T. 24 Op.136. Ibid.B. pp. who based his second or 'punaluan' family on the Dravidian and the Seneca-Iroquoissystems. 23 Op. See alsoJ. 27 May 2013 13:29:20 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions . i853. 22I.. Vol. Since Morgan. cit.' 22Adolf Mahr.Similar sets of figures may have existed in other more accessible churches. 2nd ed. A. and hope that the originaland probably centre) as a Sheela-na-Gig. cit.. 1949). Vol. A.E. I884). F. 25 26 THE DRAVIDIAN KINSHIP TERMINOLOGY EXPRESSION OF MARRIAGE* by L. 1946). 73. I2J. I48. i64. Plate 8.' Tripartite Life. Sciences.S. saw that its main feature was the distinction of 34 This content downloaded from 200. 'The Clog an Oir. R. ss7f. No. This would (i) explain the single head (Plate Cd. II.logical character. I3 'The Form of the CelticTonsure. IIO. The contrast between the lifelike sculptureof the seated ecclesiastic and the other three stereotyped figures is striking. LXXII. p.. '9 Op. I could not help thinking that it centred in marriage. 229. L. 2nd ed.'E. Foster. 350. p. H. Roberts hasexpressedthe following opinion: 'If we may assumethe existence of pre-Christian"books" in Ireland. or the originals themselves were representationsof St. D. I. XXX.I907). Ethnological With 4 text figures Committee. Butler.. IrishArt (London I940). I8 The Life of St. or possibly similar copies. McClintock. Gall (London. distinction of sex. 299.. I953 parchment. or copies of them.A. cit. 567. H. have remembered that the figures of White Island.'Down and Connor Historical Society's journal. 237.Nos. II. O'DriscollinJ. ii6ff. i83.S. and one of the most widely spread.oise Henry. note on pp. may not even have inspired some of the above quoted passages in The Tripartite Life. fig. 386a.p. distinction of two kinds of relatives inside certain generations.S. 2 Ibid. I842). 55. pp. * A paper and ofAnthropological Congress theIVInternational before read by and here published I952. 476-9.pp. p. Irish Figure Sculptures (Portland. p. VII (Belfast. a local sculptor may have been commissioned to add furtherportraitsof persons closely associatedwith this church.. Macalister. we should expect them to be in the roll form.S. cit.Field acquaintance with Dravidian kinship terminology made me feel very strongly its systematic. for iS March. 298. 6 Ed..J. p. The question now ariseswhether the three seventh-century sculptures.I936).September. 20. distinction of age. Hooke. XII. note I. I940). Therefore a few generaland criticalremarkssuggest themselves. University of Oxford AS AN This paper'springsfrom two sources.'On the other hand it is strange that Theodor Birt does not refer at all to this unusualway of holding a roll. Kenney.. quoted from Morgenblatt.. I0o. 42. (Dundalk. II.A. in fact related to but differentfrom it. and in a classificatoryperspective. more generally: and O[ =]o. In fact. it connectsalso their groups. we agree to consider the terms for the two sexes separately (as is normal in a system where the terms for females are distinct.but anotherword for mother's brother' (etc. on the contrary.4 Moreover. as we do if we suppose.' and the common assumptionthat the affinalmeaning is here secondary.and the criticism of which will throw some more light on the anthropologist'sunconsciousresistanceto the classificatory idea.This is so true that when Kirchhoff. the principle of the distinctionbeing that 'there is. the formula is not satisfactoryfor two reasons: (i) in spite of the fact that the natives do. It expresses the fact that if marriage creates a relation between two personsof differentsexes.and some of what I believe to be the factors producing these misconceptions will be found below. This content downloaded from 200. western.in his type D.2 All this would requirean explanation.as the distinction is not between paternaland maternalsides. the cognatic meaning being primary. in two columns). which are. We must. I am afraid. the maternaluncle with the mother. is.he turned a hypothetical towards previous stage of dualorganization.. we return to the same confusion. 'mother's brother' to be the basic meaning. when and it is very likely that the principle of the opposition lies found in modern literature. to accountfor it F M's Br asa whole. because the father and the mother's brother respectively fall into these two classes. for example. and the others to be extensions. but should they not give way if the facts imencounter pose it? This relationshipwe shall call an alliancerelationship.He states. Briefly. and provided that we view it against the background of the whole system (see note 7 below).an idea quite out ofplace here. 1953 Man No. As an equivalent formula I shall speak also of two men (or women) having an alliancerelationshipas male (or female) affines. If. of male relatives. Even when the 'principleof the solidarity of the sibling group' is emphasized. bifur- andrightlyconnected parallel andcrosscousins. someof its -I I features with cross-cousin marriage. in this case the relationship between father and mother's brother is: 35 or. since the paternal auntis assimilatedwith the father. a definitionobviously inaccurateand misleading. .186 on Mon.in its formula. and this should appear more clearly. becausepaternal and maternal kin are distinguished. but.They are two classes.on the contrary. is I think less accurate.' I followed this doctrine in a monographicstudy of kinship in a Tamil-speakingcommunity. and two kinds and we should only. 54 relatively simple terminology. the 'mother's brother' is also the 'father-inlaw. at the same time it was still felt as irrationaland one hastened to explain without accurately describing. not. Lesssatisfactory descriptions. the difficultyvanishes.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. these are not among their basic categoriesand are not in the least expressedin their theory: (ii) the system has much to do with marriage.Possibly our preconceived ideas resist in becomingfamiliarwith this importantand such a view.Moreover. however. as the relationshiparisingbetween two male (or two female) persons and their siblings of the same sex. and not mere feminine forms of the terms for males). 27 May 2013 13:29:20 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions . in the father'sgeneration. although not altogetherwrong.therefore. a change of sex when passingfrom the direct line to the collateral line. mergingas far as thereis a partialmerging with the parents. is based upon nothing but the common notion that one's kinshipposition necessarily precedesone's marriage. or there is not. although tending to a synthetic view. It is possible to extend the distinctionbetween-parallel and cross cousinsand to speakof paralleland crossrelatives. when tracingrelationships. which.if possible. only wants to describe it. Two errors converge here: (i) the 'extension' tendency confusesa classwith the actualmother's brother. 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. where in fact the latteris just opposed to the father. But perhapsit may be said in general that the terminology was not consideredfor a moment in itself but in terms of other aspectsof kinship.by stressingthem in fact substitutethe idea of a dyadic relationshipfor that of a class.136. there are two kinds. All these arbitrary assumptionsarise from our own way of thinking.5 But the whole passage. we can find some approach to the answer. when a 'sister' (a 'brother') of one is marriedto the other: cate. descriptivename bringsin the mother. he comes close to the explanation.obscure. There is another way of expressingthe same fact.3 Let us proceed from this point to some furtherobservations.MARCH. For instance we introduce the mother as a link between Ego and his mother'sbrother. unconsciouslysuperimposed upon the native way of thinking.217. it is the anthropologist alone who is responsiblefor the introduction of this unsatisfactoryconcept of a 'change of sex'. treatedexactly according to the same principle. that there is 'a common word for fatherand father'sbrother.as alreadymade clear by Rivers. . as only the analysisofthe system can reveal the real meaning of the category. As late as 1947 we find maintainedthe denomination of 'bifurcate merging' type introduced previously with the explanation: ' . witness to thedifficulty scholars in that relationship. (ii) the introduction of the latter's compounded. passfrom one line to another. who is only relevant at this level as the link by which the relation between father and mother's brother comes into existence.Here. J the younger. because it allows the analysis to develop at the basic level of the structure of the system. and may even be found to be common to all our terminologies. Not all groups conform to the perfect schema outlined below-for instance. hence it is not relevant here. in-law').'For instance.) are irrelevantin so far as they do not alterits unity (becausefor instancethe classword or root is kept in all).No. as stated in our previous point). 54 Man MARCH. i).O') P(+fem. for the reader's convenience.e. The need to stress the cross-cousin marriagewill appear the more striking as our analysisdevelops.136. K. different words applied to exactly the same relatives are irrelevant. FIG.' A are the 'grandfathers.In the chart (fig. Some qualificationsare necessary. (The distinctionof age in other generations. and This content downloaded from 200.And it will not be denied that the attempt will be logical rather than statistical.But conversely. 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. L. the father's. from which they differ slightly and individually.'C the 'mothers.'The distinctiveness as they are used to distinguish (i. linguistic differences which are not used to oppose classesare irrelevanthere. The system as just defined classifiesall relatives of five to grandsoninto i6 dassesby generationsfrom grandfather using i6 distinctive (setsof) terms. 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. and they are distributedsymmetrically to stressthe opposition. or again secondary differences within a class (obtainedby affixation. 'sisters. One important point is that the nature of the task compels us to considerthe distinctivenessof the terms denoting the classes. 'male crosscousins. thanks to the systematic characterof a remarkablyconstant structure. Both the Tamil lists and the published Kanareseexamples illustrateit almost perfectly.g. I B the 'fathers.but the cleavageis never the same. classes. quite irrespective of their concrete linguistic form.' E the 'mother's sisters'and 'mothers-in-law. I953 After this lengthy but necessarydiscussion. the relativesof the same sex are distinguishedinto two classes. I give the ordinary equivalents. Some of the terms have a masculineand a feminine form.' brothers' olderand I andM. All such facts are of interest. 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. and this is the rule wherever the central. every class is designated by a letter. when againin each language the actuallist of terms differsslightly from one group to another.as regardsthe value of the chart. younger. linguistic resemblances may exist between terms of different classes. This is fortunate.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. Although.wherek probably hereas an N and0 is stressed between connexion linguistic exception. 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.' D the 'father's F the 'brothers'older than and 'fathers-in-law. The generationsare as a rule absolutely distinguished. A brief explanation is needed of the expression used above: 'the distinctiveness of the terms denoting the of the terms is the main matter. Additionally.not by distinctterms. we shall not rely upon them in the least. there is no assimilation of relatives belonging to different generations. (Considerationsof space preclude these points being developed and exemplified here as they should be.' in Tamil. to oppose) classes.and even ticularitiesonly those which differentiate (for the time being) the fundamental classes of relatives only. when each language uses differentterms. 'femalecrosscousins' older and younger. etc.for the 'daughters'daughters').N the 'sons' (fem. critical distinction which follows is fully maintained. we here retain from linguistic parrelatives.we can now define the problem. ClassD has a tendency to split among the Tamil groups that I studied. 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. 27 May 2013 13:29:20 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions .186 on Mon. but they do not form part of the basicstructure. from A to P.A') 0 A E E >Ego 1<Ego J G H M K N( +fem-N') son grandson IO[=k+N]*( +fem. but by prefixed adjectives.' Ego.) Our situation is similar to that of the phoneticist: just as he 36 retains among phonetic particularitiesonly those which differentiatemeanings. What does this amount to. moreover. some have only one form. in so far as the classes are not in direct opposition. for the respectively 0 the 'sons-in-laws'(fem. P') The means * For instance 'marriage. and it is for this reason that I add the words 'denoting the classes. In each generation (or age) group. Generation grandfather father B A 0 A (+fem.G. either masculine or feminine.'and H. but on the contrary try to deduce the meaning of each class from its situation in the whole.217. LIMITS AND NATURE OF THE ANALYSIS Since Morgan. is marked. some Tamil Brahmins alter the system considerably by the introduction of a number of individualizingterms.e. and when. Again. andunder the opposition between the 'mother' and the 'father's ferentiating) sister. (i) We understand why there are no special terms (at the present level) for affmes. this again centres children. are allied). If we now consider thetwo oppositions between counterpart. are we then perhaps not entitled to speak of a structuresensustricto?But here lies (flg.we can deal exactly as above with andkin) servesunderits negative(difments (generation formasprinciple of one opposition. kin andalliance.MARCH.abstractionarisingfrom the oppositions. (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. I's brother / # distinction of Kin (alliance) distinction of generation *"f 1* SERVICE DESSIN DU MUSEE DE L'HOMME FIG. Compared with Morgan's Malayan system. I believe. his fatherandhis mother's brother. 54 thetwo termson whichit is basedarelargelyinterchangeable. because we had to abstract it on the male side. betweenEgo andEgo'sfather.beingthesameirrespective to oneanother in thekin groupareone the terminology. and different In the same generation. or as I preferto say.or ratherconfirm. In doing so we shouldnot forgetthat. Fatherand Ego are relatedby a link which excludes the characteristicof a kinship terminology as compared andwhichI proposeto call 'kin link. therearetwo elements. we aredealing asa class.Theprinciple two between But whatis the basis.wherethe two categories it emphasizes the importanceof are not distinguished. affines'. 2 This content downloaded from 200.andto tryto understand the way in whichthe different distinctions arecombined. i... while elsewhere the central distinction andthe distinction of sex aremorein evidence. is of paramount importance.tions. alliance.. . and opposed to 'terminological in kin anddifferent aresimilar in generation. of generations opposed of their course.whatis it that successive generations.Both will be found equally consistent. . conditionof the distinc. as imposed by etc. being only an of male siblings.e. 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. we shall find its feminine thisshouldbe remembered. is unrelated turning to female relatives. the native way. FATHER S GENERATION two abstractoppositionsoperatingcrosswise: (i) comin generation. as such. 27 May 2013 13:29:20 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions . Letus considernow the natureof the latterrelationand both together. 2).and the generation generation bothmaleandfemale.the distinc.e. In the relation.136. while the otherdifferentiatesthem.217..In the region HILM I had to choose between two variants. theanswer liesin the context:whatthey havein commonis opposed to what makestheir relation(morepreciselythe father's relation)with the mother'sbrother. the othervariantnot applyingdistinction of age to this group. as a mere agent bringing about (and common(thefather)..e. to the alliance . not the way through the mother.with other kinship groupings.the nature of the principle of the central opposition.in Ego. Thetwo vocabulary.e. but. and the 'mother'sbrothers'are respectively groups.. nothing to do with actual groups.(ii) communityand munityand difference in kin.andthe rangeof theirapplication. and is only a part of what the terminology suggests tion of sex.' One quali.In otherwords..in which is broughtto light by opposition the categoryof alliance to thekincategory.i. and thus definethe fundamental meaningof eachclass(as distinct fromitslinguistic meaning. oppositions is builtupon this time the father. difference The latter.But thefather himself is defined by reference to theEgo.genealogicalfather as in factwith the 'fathers' example.186 on Mon. sex mustbe added:whereas the 'fathers' revolving around the Ego. the basic meaning of the terms for the 'cross' category is affinal-my mother's brother is essentially my father's affme.. For N and 0 this is the Tamilsituation.'and connect it with the opposition between Ego and of the other. seeabove). as suggested by our own of thesex of Ego). Father *A . We shall leave out the intermediary link. but theircolncatenation 37 We have seen already that the alliance derelationship finesthe mother's brotherby reference to the father. is commonto Ego andEgo'sfather? Obviously.the sex of Ego is irrelevant (the termsfor father.although we have taken the particular. in the opposition. if it is the preliminary of generation. formasthe basis its positive(uniting) The two concrete not only haveone termin Ego's mother. A few more remarksmay be added.so thatalready in Tamilit is not possible to takeit asa generalfeature.Each of the two ele. of marriageas a relationbetween groups. that it is a constellation alliance. I953 Man No.i. We now proceedto discover. without kin. The whole could be called 'terminological together Ego. Moreoverboth ideasare given together.we see thatEgo kin' to avoid confusion.andspringfrom no alliance one another:no kin withoutalliance. to the distinction tion of kin. one of whichis commonto them both. The only differencefrom cusfication regarding male sibling tomary views on the subjectlies in the way we have taken. (iii) What is here called kin has. 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. it. the male affinesbeing sister'shusbandand wife's brotheras well as sons of the father's(male) affinesand of the mother's (female) affmes.Thekin grouparising herewi be formedof a generation of femalesiblings. 3) a generalized schema.one marriage to maintain Theoretically. i. be drawnfor males. one of which relieves the other. of that is enough. a vertical dimension. But to say that an alliancerelationshipis inherited is the This content downloaded from 200.136. what we have consideredup to now as an alliancerelationship was ouly a horizontal section of it. ratheras with 'son' and 'son-in-law').a similarone could. one so thatwe may consider relationship. thlough we takeanother view of it in accordance with the distinction of sexesin the system. have a common backgroundof age connotation and are closely connected. tlhcir andof the generation of theirchildren of both sexes.8 38 Having ended the part of the demonstration which is most likely to arouse controversy. expressing peculiarvocabulary. equally. The relationship the alliance type occur. and the generation is split into two halves under Ego's older brother and Ego's younger brother. andaffmes who haveat the same to the Ego. There will be no difficulty. that provides it with its fundamental and characteristic opposition.but one and the same relationship transmittedfrom one generationto the next. is observed.217.In orderto insistupon theclassificatory character. mostimmediate In fact. of themA askin. kin and A as affine: the two categoriesmerge in that of kin doesnot applyto it. In Ego's generation (males). and why thereis normally they cannotbe distinguished. but a new principle is invoked in order to replace as it were the waning principle.but the moremarriages eachgeneration will be. time an alliance B as or. Indeed. This means that the alliance which we considered horizontally in one generation acquiresa new. and runs through generations.e. 27 May 2013 13:29:20 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions .7 There is no theoretical difficulty in Ego's son's generation. 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. with the addition of a prefix on one side.No.This kin categoryis not different from the preceding one.and before extending it to the other generations. the alliance opposition weakens (the basis is emphasized by the use of the same word. something interestinghappens if we try to apply the same procedureas in the father's generation: on one side the alliance opposition is present. it is the same. 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.the firmer for thatis the totalformula andcomplete.opposed to alliance as above.whatwe of anydescription.it is only the anthropologist's alliancein terms of kin. but rather a practical one: in Tamil at least. although there is probably a common background. andthe distinction generation allianceworks The same may be said about grandsons: for (two or) threegenerations of opposition asa principle only. only one term for both of them. we give here (fig. relationship (or marriage cross-cousin generation.we may pausehere and get a first glimpse of the whole. Inthe grandfather's link between an affmal leadsone to suppose an equivaleht) and this is the very reasonwhy Ego's two grandfathers. whereasall relativesmerge in the fifth and the first. inherited. On the other side. )o Or( =) 3 in othergenerations How canwe in our turnreproduce If the alliance what we said in the father'sgeneration? the generation to be similar.186 on Mon. 54 Man MARCH. 4ndso aretheirfathers.of course. This is consistent. for both are kin in one is kin in another:motheras well asfather way. as Ego and his brothersmight be considered indifferently. just as the 'mother's brother' proved to be essentiallythe father'saffme. of revealing thissimpletruthinstead which conceals OTHER GENERATIONS KID OQ Li of genHeratio distinction [j (= ALLIANCE REPRESENTS FIG. may be supposed relationship will be different. in showing that Ego's 'cross cousins' are essentially Ego's affines. as one can imagine. relative age is distinguished. but I can offer no structuralexplanation. andthe otherB asaffme.the mothers(opposedto femaleaffines). and at the same time the sex opposition disappears('daughter' is the feminine of 'son'). ALLIANCE AS AN ENDURING INSTITUTION: CROSS-COUSIN MAIRIAGE It is not another alliance. The two distinctions(generationand age). I953 hencecontained in) the alliance relationship betweenthe two women. the generation opposition vanishes. regulation marriage sameasto saythata certain in the relation. but we here crossthe generationaxis of the structure.. cit. Telugu andKanarese. 3 P. p. 4I-72.. 56-68.. a Test of five Theories.. and I932. I907.As. and he is opposed to the 'cross cousin. as stressedby Mrs. and perhapsit is also an explanationfor the stability and vitality of the Dravidian terminology which has puzzled many anthropologistssince Morgan. then. see pp. 'Bifurcate-Merging.'MAN. Vol.. Levi-Strauss.'EasternAnthrop. 'Kinship Systems.I (a) FIG. This tendency combinesin various ways with the elder-younger distinction. 2 Lewis H.andto D.. The third distinction (which alone is in no way biological) is the most important. is largely inen linguistique fluencedby Cl.Lucknow. For a structuralapproachto attitudes. Ego's generation is taken as a whole.. p.-Nov.and distinction of age. the male affine is opposed directly to Ego.'Zeits. 2. pp. CONCLUSION I have shown.see E. Karvein a study to be published(oralcommunication). 7 This featureis fundamental. Introduction. 6 Most completeareMorgan'slists (Systems. R. 'L'Analysestructurale et en anthropologie. It is a tendency to stressthe relative sex of the person compared to the Ego.. (I950-I). pp. No. to be published. I947. For this we can account very simply: in that variant. I950. This content downloaded from 200. 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).. 4a). and our analysisrestslargely upon it.. . arefound in grammars. as older. I73). Radcliffe-Brown.. I945. Notes wish to expressmy thanksto ProfessorEvans-Pritchard for his discussion of this paper. (not restrictedto written languages.. I have takenhereinto accountlistsfrom severalgroups in Tamil. 25. Dumont. Pocock. distinctionof sex.. 424-52. 61I-40.' J.. see also 'The Marriageof Cross Cousins in India. cf. 4b). 'Bifurcate-merging': R.9 No wonder. P.This is not necessary.Vol.London. EGO . opposed to a 'younger crosscousin' (fig.217. it is in this part that the actual terminologies differmost from our chart.Soc. that the Dravidiankinshipterminology.London (Methuen). Murdock.. No. our chart gives for the affineshere only one of the two variants actually found. August. Social Organization(I948). for his help in its preparation. I. 545-5I (reprinted II I952. 4 (b) Moreover.. I9I4. 'A Note on Relationship Terminologies.does not replace structurallythe generation distinction. although different.. Severalfactorsare at work. I928. The whole structure is differentwhen grandsonand grandfather are identified. Levi-Strauss. I hope. Kinshipand SocialOrganization. etc.'Amer.. XXXII (I937). and the age distinction.U.. The same for the younger brother. so that it requiresa special treatment. pp. 73. I hope that my emphasison Parente'. 'Solidarity of the Sibling Group': A. that the two categoriesof kin and affines comprehend all relatives without any third category. I. The structuralapproach. AncientSociety. R..R. LXIV (I932). 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. 4 For a strong protest againstthis kind of 'extension' see A. Listsof 'common' terms. Morgan.. 7. 8 The close connexion between age and generationin the structure may constitute the basis of an important exception to the generationprinciple.fur Ethnol... In the preceding paragraphwe have already anticipated the classification of female relatives. marriagewill be found in keeping with the generalinspirationof that work. E. 9 This does not happenalways. IV. 39 5 Formulafrom Cl. p. M. and supposes-as well as favours-the rule of marrying a cross cousin as a means of maintainingit. pp. if India makes it the paramountceremony... I877. unspecifiedand unlocalized. and at the same time separatesin two from the point of view of one Ego..Anthrop. pp. in AfricanSystemsof KinshipandMarriage. one of which is.but only when certainconditions are present.). G. older than Ego' as a sibling to an affine.'Amer. As previously stated..186 on Mon.1953 Man No.but see for Kanarese Srinivas. cf Lowie. I949. the system embodies a sociological theory of marriage taken in the form of an institution following the generations. and Iravas. 'Kinshipand Allianceamong the Pramalai Kallar.136. 63.MARCHr. distinctionof kin identical with alliance relationship. which it unites.. 47-9.as the structureis symmetrical (with the exceptionjust mentioned). I48. London. in TheLife-giving Myth. Vol.. The other variantpresentsno distinctionof age among the affmesand has only one term for males equivalent to HL.). W..p. Lowie. H.I . 265f. 5-I2 as a first attemptin the presentdirection. ratherof a diachronicnature. This may be understoodwithout resortingto dual organization.' Word. and therefore..Nayadis. Rivers. 'The Study of Kinship. L. i65. Les Structures Elementairesde la Paris (P. PP. Hocart.F.. in Dumont. of a classificatorynature..and the age order between Ego and his kin is inverted. Vol.' Anthropos. 5i8f.. I929. Referencesto recentmonographs loc. I-26 (but with many misprints). H. as in Kariera(with two terms for each). pp. Kirchhoff. i. which should be extended from the mother's to the other generations. although introduced among brothers. AHt EG O _ . and with it other terminologies of the same type. 54 Now we can proceed with the elder brother as with the father:he is opposed to Ego. 'Verwandtschaftsbezeichnungen u. London. well preserved in Indian groups.. Evans-Pritchard.Marriage. 27 May 2013 13:29:20 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions ...New York.. Hence also the fact. is not extended to the affines (fig. Verwandtenheirat.Anthrop. and the matter is still more complicated by other factors.. Sept. for MalayalamAiyappan. pp. as is quite naturalwhere prospective mates are found.) for Tamil. .pp.
Report "Dravidian Kinship Terminology as an Expression of Marriage"