FREE BOOKS

Author's List




PREV.   NEXT  
|<   95   96   97   98   99   100   101   102   103   104   105   106   107   108   109   110   111   112   113   114   115   116   117   118   119  
120   121   122   123   124   125   126   127   128   129   130   131   132   133   134   135   136   137   138   139   140   141   142   143   144   >>   >|  
he Wathi-Wathi, we find the rule that a man must marry in his own generation; and this is _prima facie_ the meaning of the four-class rule. It is true that the origin of the eight-class rule was not what its _prima facie_ meaning suggests, viz., the desire to prevent the marriage of cousins, for we know that it originated in the distinction between elder and younger sisters. But no similar theory appears to fit the case of the four-class tribes. No division within the generation could possibly produce an alternation of generations. The Red Indians have in many cases different names for the elder and younger sister; the Hausa impose on persons standing in these relations certain prohibitions and avoidances, which are not the same for both elder and younger; in Australia a man may speak freely to his elder sisters in blood, but only at a distance to his tribal _ungaraitcha_. To his younger sisters, blood and tribal, he may not speak save at such a distance that his features are indistinguishable. In many parts the elder brother has special rights with regard to the younger, and many similar customs might be quoted[139]. The question why marriage within the generation--the rule of four-class and two-phratry tribes alike--should have come into existence is a complicated one and involves that of the origin of kinship terms. If we take a crucial case of kinship terminology, we find that a child applies the same term to its actual mother as to all the women whom its father might have married, to its potential mothers in fact. If therefore we have to choose between the gradual extension of the terms from the single family to the group or their original application to a group, this instance seems decisive in favour of the latter theory. Now if marriage was originally not "group" but individual, a question to be fully discussed in later chapters, we can hardly doubt that parent-child marriage was forbidden or perhaps instinctively avoided. But this would be equivalent to prohibiting marriage with one of a number of men or women embraced under a common kinship term. In the lower culture generally and especially among the Australians there is a tendency to follow things out to their logical conclusions. If this were done in the present case, the result would be to extend the prohibition to all the persons embraced under the kinship term. In any case the natural tendency in a small group would be to marry within the generati
PREV.   NEXT  
|<   95   96   97   98   99   100   101   102   103   104   105   106   107   108   109   110   111   112   113   114   115   116   117   118   119  
120   121   122   123   124   125   126   127   128   129   130   131   132   133   134   135   136   137   138   139   140   141   142   143   144   >>   >|  



Top keywords:

marriage

 

younger

 

kinship

 

sisters

 
generation
 

tribes

 

theory

 

persons

 

similar

 

embraced


question

 

origin

 

distance

 
meaning
 
tendency
 
tribal
 

application

 

instance

 

decisive

 

favour


father

 

married

 

potential

 
actual
 

mother

 

mothers

 
single
 
family
 

extension

 
choose

gradual
 

original

 
number
 

things

 
logical
 

conclusions

 

follow

 
Australians
 

natural

 

generati


prohibition

 
present
 

result

 

extend

 
generally
 

culture

 

chapters

 

discussed

 
originally
 

individual