Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
Loading next page...
/lp/brill/replication-in-cross-cultural-research-WOb0E9GFlY
References
References for this paper are not available at this time. We will be adding them shortly, thank you for your patience.
- Publisher
- Brill
- Copyright
- © 1971 J. Leeuwe
- ISSN
- 0006-2294
- eISSN
- 2213-4379
- DOI
- 10.1163/22134379-90002792
- Publisher site
- See Article on Publisher Site
Abstract
Replication cross cultural research : Bijdrag tot de Taal-, Land- Volkkunde 127 (1971), no: 1, Leid, 82-145 This PDF-file was downaded from http://www.kitlv-journals.nl DESCT, MARRIAGE SYSTEM, AND MODE OF PRODUCTION C o n t e n t s: 1. Figures and their terpretation by HOMANS and SCHNEIDER. 2. Desct, marriageable marital residce. relatives, subsistce type and 3. Marriage system and desct. 4. Desct and mode of production. 5. Matrily versus patrily. 6. Matrileal, patrileal and bilateral syste; suary of our empirical results. 7. A differt terpretation of HOMANS' and SCHNEIDER'S figures. 8. Brief suary and nclusion. 1. FIGURES AND THEIR TERPRETATION BY HOMANS AND SCHNEIDER. T T I I OMANS and SCHNEIDER (1955) say that marriage partners are I I sought preferably with a group of which the head exerts n o jural authority over ego (man) (pp. 21 ff.). (currtly known) societies with (predomantly) matrileal desct system, such jural authority is exercised as a rule by the mother's brother. For this reasón a man would preferably n o t ok for a marriage partner from the mother's desct group, but would give a (relative) preferce the matter to the paternal le. that case the marriage partner may be a daughter of father's (classificatory) sister, but not of mother's (classificatory) brother, acrdg to HOMANS and SCHNEIDER. The system under whieh a man marries (preferably) the FZD, and not the MBD, is called here FZDm. societies with a (maly) patrileal system of desct, the father usually exercises the aforemtioned jural authority. HOMANS and SCHNEIDER argue that for this reason ego (man) will preferably n o t marry the FZD, but give (relative) preferce to the MBD. The latter marriage system is here called MBDm. Usg G. p. MURDOCK'S World Ethnographic Sample, H. and s. arrived at the folwg umeration: matrileal: FZDm MBDm totals 5 4 9 patrileal: 2 22 24 total number of cult.: 7 26 33 The result of their prediction is 5/9 > 2/24; P r = 0.0086 wh usg FISHER'S Exact Probability Test ( = FEPT). Replication has nfirmed the figures obtaed by HOMANS and SCHNEIDER. Without observance of certa elimaition rules (i.e. on the same basis as used by H. and s.), the result became for my Sample I : 5/13 > 0/14; P r = 0.016 (with F E P T ) ; for my Sample I I : 2/8 ~ 1/15: right direction; and for the total: 7/21 > 1/29; P r = 0.0067. Applyg MURDOCK'S elimation rules -- which amount to statistically stricter demands as to the material -- I obtaed for S I: 5/12 > 0/11; P r = 0.024 ( F E P T ) ; for S I I : 1/6 ~ 1/15: right direction; and for thé whole: 5/16 > 1/26; P r = 0.0232. Amply significant on the 5% level, ev if further elimation were to reject another 15 to 20% of the material, divided proportionally arnong the cells (DE LEEUWE: Replication Cross Cultural Research: Samplg Method). Now, though we are on the safe side with HOMANS' and SCHNEIDER'S figures, their theory see nevertheless a decidedly weak one. They theelves term it "not nclusive" (1955, p. 59), but my view this does rather more than justice to their terpretation of the figures. the first place: basg ourselves for the time beg purely on the factual ethnographic data H. and s. furnish theelves their book, it is rrect to claim, as they do, that the only society (out of 33) to whom their theory does not apply is the Yir-Yoront. The fact is that there are too many societies their sample for whom data about "jural authority over ego (man)" are 1 a c k i n g. Sendly, they give a defition (p. 21) of "jural authority" which is too little specific to be of much use for this purpose: "We shall say that a person has authority over others to the extt that they fact carry out the wishes, suggestions, orders he addresses to them" . . . . "By jural authority we mean, th, legitimate or nstituted authority, and a person holds jural authority over others wh, acrdg to the stated nor of his group, he has the right to give them orders and they have the duty to obey." To illustrate our öbjections we shall, on the basis of H.'S and s.'s publication (1955), subject the four cells of their 2 x 2 table to cser scruty. On pp. 37 ff. the authors seek to justify their class 1 (patrily + MBDm), mprisg 22 cultures, which class is supposedly acrdance .with their theory. With the exception of the Murng and the Yir-Yoront, there would for "none" of these "patrileal-matrilateral societies" be any reason "to suspect that the cus of iediate jural authority over ego lies any person but his father." The authors give no proof whatever for this. On the ntrary, wh 'by way of illustratio they ok to the personal relationships among the vedu -- one of the 13 societies about whom they claim to have nfirmatory data as to the suspected pleasant relationship betwe a man and a non-authoritative MB -- almost nothg of HOMAS and SCHNEIDER'S theory remas valid for this case. It is true that the father has "authority", at least that is what HOMANS and SCHNEIDER make of it, but the ethnographic source they quote (1955, p. 37) says: "The father has authority, but his authority is never oppressive like that of European fathers, whose childr live much cser ntact with them." To the FZ "honour and respect are give (p. 38). The ethnographic source goes on: "There is a sayg . . . (among the vedu) . . . 've lies on the mother's side of the family; ownership on the father's." HOMANS and SCHNEIDER -- beggg the question -- th terpret, without statg further reasons, that such "ve" refers to the stimts of fridship and ve for the MB too, ntrary to the stimts of honour and respect for the people of the paternal le. With the lanic assurance of "we suspect" H. and s. understand "ownership" as the "jural rights of ntról" over ego (man). But my opion "ve" may just as well refer to the bare fact that a man marries with the matrileage, while "ownership" may refer to membership of a desct group, to right of heritance, etc. These possibilities beme the more important wh it appears that ego (man) should possibly honour and respect his MB no less than his F Z : "Your mother's brother may be kd to you, but you have to show him respect: if he asks you to go on a message or to help him the fields, you cannot refuse; while, if he needs you, you may be st to herd for him or help nurse his small childre (ib. p. 38). Sce the father is explicitly characterised as "not oppressive", there appears to be no ntrast betwe the authority of the father and that of the MB. The Mde are likewise a society about which H. and S; claim to have gathered prciple all the required data, Now the fact is that here the personal relatiohships are ev exactly the reverse of what they would have be if acrdance with H.'S and s.'s theory. "If, aga, the stimtal tie with the mother's brother is very important to ego, he may hesitate to offd mother's brother which may give the latter de facto authority over ego, however littlè he may have de jure." Thus far it is all a prenceived terpretation by H. and s., without any foundation fact, but which means that, if the hard facts were the reverse, the theory would still be rrect. And so it is: "Thus we learn of the Mde, one of the societies of the prest class, ' ter of family law, to disobey one's uncle is an ev graver offce than disobedice of one's father and may provoke a more serious curse'" (P- 40). respect of the Yir-Yoront -- pp. 40-42 -- H. and s. admit that ego (man) is pampered by his father and the people of the patrileage, and tyrannised over by the mother and especially by the MB. Add to this that for 9 of these 22, societies no data are knowh (acrdg to H. and s. theelves) about the relationship betwe ego (man) and his MB. It may therefore be ncluded that HOMANS' and; SCHNEIDER, ntrary to'their claim, c a n n o t prove their theory ethnographically for .class 1, so that from a statistical pot of view the terpretation they put upon their (as such significant) figure results, might se its basis. But we will also take a cser ok at the other three classes. H.'S and s.'s class 2 mprises 2 cultures. (Nature of class: patrily + FZDm.) H. and s. nsider the Kandyu an unexplaed exception to their "special hypothesis", which is that the case of patrily MBDm will occur and not FZDm. They do not nsider their "geral hypothesis" -- that the evt of FZDm the people of the patrileage will exert proportionally little authority over ego (man) -- directly ntradicted this case. They are right, but it does give their terpretation sufficit support, sce theirs is the burd of proof. The fact is that, acrdg to H. and s., the "cus of jural authority" over ego (man) is unknown to them as regards the Kandyu and that they. know "almost nothg" about the terpersonal relationship among the Kandyu. Meanwhile, we wish to observe here, partly view of what we will expla Oh. 7 of this article, that among the Kandyu a woman gives her daughter to her BS. As a result the man does marry his FZD, but this has got nothg to do with H.'S and s.'s theory. The other society this class is the Sherte. It is true that for this culture there are dications that ego (man) soon mes under the leadership of a (classificatory) brother of his mother's, although such "boss" may just as well be the husband of his father's sister (p. 49). Thus H.'S and s.'s theory ses support here too. Aga with a view to what will be discussed Ch. 7 of this article, I would mtion that among the Sherte the MB has notable authority over ego (w o m a n). He gives his sister's daughter marriage to his own son (p. 50). This too has nothg to do with H.'S and s.'s theory. H.'S and s.'s class 3 (matrily + MBDm) is by its nature ntrary to H.'S and s.'s "special hypothesis", as they theelves observe, and it is important to them to demonstrate that the result does agree with their "geral hypothesis" (see above). the sample this class tnprises 4 cultures: Garo, Kaonde, Kaska and Siriono. As to the Kaonde H. and s. admit that there is: "no evidce whether or not they nform to our geral theory" (p. 45). Among the Kaska the father has more authority than the MB and this would, therefore, be a plus for H.'S and s.'s geral theory. But we dare claim that this fact also fits the theory which we shall devep Ch. 7 of this article and that the latter theory is preferable for reasons to be stated that chapter. For the time beg it may suffice to note that not only everythg that would nform with H.'S and s.'s theory fits ours likewise, but that also the factual data which class with H.'S and s.'s theory acrd with oür theory, and that the latter theory moreover agrees with a number of other phoma which bg to this subject and have not be discussed by H. and s. (cf. Ch. 2 to 6 of the prest paper.) For example, among the Kaska the MB too is not without authority as regards ego (man) (pp. 45/46). The same applies to the Siriono. There too ego is subject to the father's authority until marriage. So far the facts agree with what H. and s. suppose. But after marriage "some slight ntrol by the mother's brother" is possible (p. 46). The Garo (p. 47) may perhaps be bracketed with this small subgroup of 3. There remas class 4 (matrily -|- FZDm), mprisg H.'S and s.'s sample five societies. This class is formally agreit wkh the special hypothesis (see above) of these authors. But also ntt the results for this class are not unfavourable for H. and S., meang that here their geral hypothesis see to be nfirmed at least by some ethnographic facts. This goes for the Trobiand Islanders, the Tlgit and the Ila. As for the Haida the data offer little to go by, and for the Tismulun the required particulars are missg. As appears from this chapter, ev H.'S and s.'s geral hypothesis still fds statistical support if the cases for which the required ethnographic data are lackg are left out, and the cases which H.'S and s.'s geral hypothesis is ethnographically ntradicted are transferred to the cell where they bg as to ntt. But th H. and s. are giv the befit of the doubt, and one would hesitate to do s > on fdg o that they, wh quotg examples class 1, ev reverse certa ethnographic facts. With referce to our precedg discussion of the four classes, we fd that class 1 we have to leave out 9 cultures of which H. and s. say they lack the required factual data, and moreover the vedu, because it is, to say the least, impossible to fd out whether the father or the MB is the bigger authority. There rema that class 12 cultures, 2 of which (Yir-Yoront and Mde) are directly ntrary to H.'S and s.'s geral hypothesis. The whole of class 2 must be left out for the geral hypothesis, skice the necessary data are lackg for both the Kandyu and the Sherte. class 3 Kaonde have to be left -out, and the other 3 may the most propitious case be unted favour of H.'S and s.'s geral hypothesis. class 4 Haida and Tismulun drop out, leavg 3 favour of H. and s. The umeration th is as folws: MB "oppressive authority" FZDm MBDm 3 (out of class 4) 2 (out of class 1) father "oppressive authority" 0 10 (out of class 1) 3 (out of class 3) The result of the prediction based on H.'S and s.'s geral hypothesis will be: 3/5 > 0/13; P r = 0.012 (with FEPT). Wh meanwhile HOMAS and SCHNEIDEE'S geral and special hypotheses are examed csely (1955, pp. 23, 27, 28), a test (cludg replication) yields figure results which, spite of statistical nfirmation, are highly unsatisfactory for H.'S and s.'s theory. Acrdg to that theory matrily (and likewise de jure MB authority over egO' man . . . . ) would not only be apanied mparatively frequtly by FZDm Ibut woiuld (be hardly or not at all mpatible wkh MBDm. nversely, patrily (and likewise de jure fatherly authority over ego - man . . . . ) would not only be found relatively frequtly with MBDm but would be hardly or not mpatible with FZDm. For patrily and fatherly authority the figures speak favour of HOMANS and SCHNEIDER, but for matrily and MB authority they do n o t . 3/5 ~ 0.50; 5/9 ~ 0.50. Replication of the research as regards the special hypothesis shows both samples ev more matrileal societies with MBDm than with FZDm. (See the umerations at the begng of thisi chapter: only 5 out of 13 and 2 out of 8, or 5 out of 12 and 1 out of 6 matrileal societies have FZDm.) We may claim positively that patrileal societies have, it is true, a preferce for MBDm (versus FZDm), but we also fd that matrileal societies have n o preferce for FZDm (versus MBDm). If we regard S I as an expratory sample, we have tested it by S I -f- S II, with elimation. I thk we can expla the phomon notably Ch. 7. 2. DESCT, MARRIAGEABLE RELATIVES/ SUBSISTCE TYPE AND MARITAL RESIDCE. If one is to arrive at a satisfactory theory about the relationships discussed the prècedg chapter, one should also search for an answer to the question where desct syste (based on leality or otherwise) sprg from and where the possible systematic relationships betwe desct syste and cross-us marriage me from. We shall (for the time beg) be speakg exclusively of first uss (whether classificatory or not), adherg to the dg of the EA, 1967, pp. 49/50, l. 25. Cf. also our other article as regards the replication of HOMANS' and SCHNEIDER'S research. Some authors thk that cross-us marriage origated on the basis of (unileal) exogamy plus marriage-to-the-csest-permitted relative. FOX (1967, p. 180) hts at this. Under such a system people of one unileal group are ceded to marry people of the same geration from a certa other similar unileal group. The former group receives mpsation for such people, either from the group to whom it has ceded them, or from a third similar group, namely the form of marriage partners. Sce under a unileal desct system with obligatory marriage with one specified unileal group (but not my own), father's (classificatory) brother is the marriage partner of mother's (classificatory) sister, my c 1 o s e s t relatives permitted as marriage partners of my own geration, will be my (classificatory) cross-uss. (Cf. FOX, 1967, Ch. sev, III, pp. 184 ff.) Some authors suspect that the origal form of this kd of exchange of people through marriage on the basis of unileality, i.e. directed exogamy and marriage with the csest permitted relative, has be the exchange betwe (each time) t w o equivalt and similar unileal groups. FOX observes rrectly that, to put it mildly, it is ose usage to speak of "s i s t e r-exchange" all cases of that kd (ib., p. 180). I wish to add that it should neither be assumed off-hand that they have at all times manipulated w o m e n and/or that the manipulators have always be m e n . (Cf. DE LEEUWE, 1962, 1964, 1965.) That wom are sometimes the manipulators appears moreover from the data about the Kandyu quoted by HOMANS and SCHNEIDER (1955, p. 48, tak from U. Mcnnel). The various questions as to the orig of unileality have be disputed subsequtly as regards both the historical age of patrily and matrily, mpared wkh one another, and the historical age of leality mpared with (certa kds of) bilaterality, and also as regards the (ma) causes of all these phoma. · Supposg that unileality plus directed exogamy and cross-us marriage were origally upled the manner described above, thën there is some ground to suspect that cross-us marriage at least tds to rise and vanish with unileality. Moreover, it should be borne md that unileality with directed exogamy by no means mpels one to marry the csest permitted relative, while, the other way round, gnatic (i.e. bilateral) kship ssyte need not exclude cross-us marriage. We will now predict that (sgle) unileal syste will sre proportionally more oft some prescribed or preferred cross-us marriage system ( = C) than bilateral syste will. For reasons to be explaed prestly, we also predict that verification of our prediction will n o t be owg to only one kd of leality (but possibly to both separately or to neither separately). (Predictions A and A'.) 90 PREDICTIONS A and A'. umeration for S I 1 : bilat. patrily matrily Result of pred. A : C other m totals: 48/184 > 14/102; z = 2.5942 P r = 0.00480 bilat. patrily matrily Result of pred. A : C other m totals: 49/185 > 13/103; z ~ 2.59 (cf. res. S I) P r ~ 0.005 Prediction A twice tested and both times amply verified. To fd out whether perhaps not only one kd of leality is reponsible for this result, we make a test for the most unfavourable proportions. It is understood without any further calculation that one should th ntrast the patrileal syste with the bilateral syste. (Patrily versus matrily is not at issue this prediction and will be discussed later.) ResuLt of pred. A' for S I : 25/138 ~ 14/102; z = 0.91869; P r = 0.1788; not sign.; right [direction. Result for S I I : 30/137 > 13/103; z = 1.8815; P r = 0.0301; sign. 0.91869+1.8815 ztotai (for mbation) = V2 = 1 . 9 8 ; P r = 0.0239. Doublé unileality, which is not volved the theoretical discussion this article, has be left out of the unt everywhere. The syste ncerned nstituted nowhere more than 5% of S I or S II, each time their totality (N ^ 300). Prediction A' tested and retested, with amply significant result for mbation: each category of unileality separately sres proportionally more oft a cross-us marriage system (versus all other marriage syste) than bilaterality does. We will first discuss the question whether (sgle) unileal syste are possibly more archaic (versus modern) than bilateral syste are. Formally apart stands the question whether unileal syste are perhaps proportionally more oft historkally older, i.e. of earlier orig phigitically, than bilateral syste. As a matter of fact, we are n o t ncerned here with biogical structures. As regards the latter it may be argued (as far as I know) that the absolutely oldest archaic for are always historically older than any more modern form. As regards human-social structures, on the other hand, it is n o t a priori impossible that (some) more archaic and (some) more modern for (have) origate(d) depdtly of one another more or less simultaneously, each time at differt places among groups of people who, f o r t h e r e s t , have attaed equal devepmt levels a number of esstial aspeots. Whether such a thg is 1 i k e 1 y is somethg else and should be vestigated from case to case. As one characteristic of modern versus archaic a cultural anthropogical sse, I would nsider survival ability, folwg a ht by FOX (1967, p. 151). By this is meant that the characteristic question (versus aaother characteristic with the framework of the same variable) is found proportionally more frequtly the mpany of characteristics which we know to be modern (versus archaic). First of all: how do we know this? A) Because the latter case we are ncerned with characteristics which we know to be phygetically younger than the rrespondg archaic characteristics: the mputer is phygetically younger than the steam girie; the steam ge is phygetically younger than the hand-om. B) Because we know, e.g. on the basis of our knowledge of the devepmt of technogy, that a certa characteristic requires a more advanced devepmt than rrespondg archaic characteristics do; so the harpoon is more modern than the up de pog; the wrought-iron arrow-head is more modern than the wood arrow-head; tillage is more modern than food-gatherg. a series of cases the technogical level notably is a clear dication for "moder versus "archaic". Now supposg that bilaterality, patrily and matrily all three (all differt societies) appear to occur on the west technogical level known to us from ethnography, but that the societies with the highest technogical devepmt only bilaterality is left, th bilaterality (versus unileality) has the highest survival ability. This might be a reason to nsider bilaterality more modern by its nature than unileality. Nature and causes of this modernky should, if possible, be further vestigated. Now there are at least two kds of bilaterality, namely bilaterality which is reckoned from one or more ancestors {ramage the EA) and bilaterality reckoned from ego (kdred the EA). Both for appear to occur on a relatively w technogical level. Usg a rough impression from the ethnographic and politienomic literature, we dare predict that bilaterality, whatever form, is lked proportionally more oft with the highest technogical level known to us (versus all other technogical levels) than unileality is. The highest technogical level known to us and expressed the EA is dustrialisation. ( the EA: I, or a symbol dg i one or more lumns of the series 42 to 62. Wh "I" or ".. i" -- versus all other symbols -- occurs at least once the lumns 42 to 62 for a certa culture, we nsider such culture wholly or partially dustrialised as regards.the enomy. the annex to this article the dustrialised societies are dicated by an i after lumni 16) (Prediction B). PREDICTION B. umeration for S I: bilat. patrily + matrily Result of pred.: dustr. non-d. vert. tot. 8/102 > 0/184; 4.1110; Pr - 0.0000207 bilat. patrily + matrily Result of pred.: dustr. non-d. vert. tot. ^total -- 1 (patr.) 2/103 ~ 1/185; z = 1.0909; 184 P r = 0.1379; not sign., right direction. 185 3.68; Pr totai 0.000108. 4.1110 + 1.0909 V2 The prediction has be amply verified through replication and mbation. The problem that the result might be attributed to only one kd of leality does not arise, due to the extremely rare occürrce of the unileality plus dustrialisation mbation. Meanwhile it is known likewise from the ethnographic Hterature that bilaterality has a preferce for the relatively 1 o w e s t technogical level which we know, at least for the relatively most archaic subsistce enomy: gatherg plus huntg and/or fishg, which ABERLE, 1962, called extractive enomy. Those are the societies for which, lumn 7 of the EA, the sum of the fal 2 figures is 3 at most, meang that, such a society, the subsistce enomy is based for only 35% at most on agriculture and/or livestock farmg (whereas dustry is lackg acrdg to lumns 42 to 62). We will here call them "extractive" or "0-3". Our prediction should read that societies with sgle unileal desct system will sre proportionally more oft non-extractive also nondustrialised (versus extractive or dustrialised suated) than bilaterality will. We also predict that this result will not be caused by only one of the two categories of simple unileality, or only by one of the two classes of extreme subsistce enomies (0^3 or dustrialised). (Predictions C, C' and C".) We shall use the same unts for a prediction D, of which we shall speak prestly. PREDICTIONS C, C, C" and D. umeration for S I: bilat. patrily matrily umeration for SII: bil. pat. mat. extract. (0-3) non 0-3 also non-dustr. dustrial vert. totals Result of pred. C for S I : 163/184 > 47/102; z ~ 6; P r <1 billionth (the result is calculated only for the most unfavourable proportions and those are supplied by S II: 162/185 > 57/103; P r = 0.09530, as z = 6.0581.) Result of pred. C' for S I: That 126/138 and 37/46 > 47/102 is clear without further calculation. Ditto for S I I : 122/137 and 40/48 > 57/103. Result of pred. C". Here too, no further calculations are required. For S I : 37/37 and 126/126 are > 47/56; 37/46 and 126/138 > 47/94. For S I I : the figures are acrdgly. Replication and possible mbation may be left to the reader. We deduce expratively from the umeration for S I that bilaterality an absolute sse is lked more strongly with extractive subsistce enomy than with dustry. As a matter of fact, 47/102 ~ 0.50, whereas 8/102 < 0.50, which is clear without further calculation. If we keep to the usual reliability margs (with a 10% chance of a wrong answer), the perctage of cultures the population which are at the same time bilateral and 0-3 can be approximately 40 at the 1 o w e s t, while the perctage of bilateral and also dustrialised cultures the population can be approximately 15 at the h i g h e s t . (Exprative prediction D.) A test agast S II verifies the prediction. Here 57/103 is opposed to 2/103. ABERLE (1962, pp. 679-680) has merely observed that societies with bilateral syste (versus patrily and versus matrily) sre proportionally more oft extractive (versus all other types of enomy), which is true itself. He has not observed that bilaterality sres relatively ev more oft dustry, because ABERLE has not separately ded this most modern top of the subsistce enomy, and not sred it separately either. It would appear from our above argumt that bilaterality is more modern than (sgle) unileality, because of the greater survival ability of bilaterality. If this is true, it remas a remarkable thg that bilaterality an absolute sse is lked more strongly with extractive means of subsistce than with dustry and that 'bilaterality sres proportionally more oft extractive than (sgle) unileality does. As for the former objection, it may be noted that the number of dustrial societies is not (yet) very large mparison with the number of 0-3 societies, which I thk we may safely regard as a passg historical phomon: the so-called "primitive cultures" are swly but surely disappearg, to the dismay of some cultural anthropogists; societies with dustry are growg number, both absolutely and relatively. As for the send objection which I have just mtioned: if bilaterality (versus unileality) is fact more modern, th it ought to appear that the societies with extractive subsistce enomy plus bilaterality are certa respects proportionally larger numbers modern than is the case for extractive subsistce enomy plusl unileality. Or -- if we want to be slightly less severe -- these thgs should at least be true for other than dustrialised societies. So we will, at a giv time, have to drop the latter from the unts. Now we khow (cf. e.g. DE LEEUWE, 1970) that the level of the production forces is dicated only approximately by variables such as "technogical level" and "subsistce enomy". The subsistce enomy sometimes permits with a certa type (e.g. extractive or e.g. tillage) a fairly wide variation technogical level, whereas factors like natural vironmt may addition to technogical level affect the level of the production forces and the enomy. On the ground of Marxist literature, ter alia, it may be presumed that a better dicator for the level of the production forces would be the measure which each time the smallest possible number of dividuals prove capable of supportg theelves without obtag direct assistance with regard to the production share question. It is known through ethnography that, as the level of technogical devepmt is wer -- notably wh at the same time the natural vironmt does n o t easily yield fruits -- it is n o t possible for an dividual to supply, without direct assistance from others, a share the production which adequately sures the subsistce of such an dividual. This does n o t mean that twos, threes or more they would produce more per head than they would have done dividually; it means that dividually they would not have be able to produce at all. As ng as, say, huntg weapons are not yet sufficitly deveped, one dividual or the (male) members of one so-called nuclear family (jotly) cannot secure any game to speak of. The on hunt, and notably the drive, th appears to be (virtually) the only mode of huntg. Somethg similar goes for fishery. On the other hand it may be noted for a l l types of production that our modern stages of technogical devepmt demand operaition by big groups (e.g. agriculture, on big ships, factories), but th the situation does differ from the one with a w production force level. the case of, say, large-scale mechanised agriculture, modern sea fishery or today's factory production, one dividual or the workg members of one nuclear family are usually able to earn ( = . t o produce, less the produced surplus value) ough to support hielf and/or the tire family. the light of the foregog it uld be argued that where the nuclear family is able, without any direct help from others the production share ncerned, to produce ough for itself (as distct from the nuclear family's not beg able so to produce), the level of the produotion forces is higher (versus wer), which means that the society is more modern (versus more archaic). The (relatively) depdt production by a nuclear family, as meant here, we will hceforth call, for the sake of nvioe, "depdt productio. The rrespondg non-depdt production is th called "depdt". Unfortunately, (as far as I know) this cannot be read at a glance from the E A : the EA one has to ok for dicators of this dicator. They seem to be deed prest: they should be data showg' the enomie weight of the nuclear family. Origally I feit that the presce or absce of the extded family as a mass phomon would be an dicator of the enomie weight of the nuclear family. I put the des M, N, O, P, Q, R and S (i.e. extded families lackg) of l. 14 the EA agast the des E, F and G (i.e. extded families prest). If bilaterality (versus unileality) were to rrelate with modernity of society -- the sse of a higher level of the production forces -- (versus archaism), and if it may be assumed that the enomie weight of the nuclear family the aforemtioned sse reflects the level of the production forces, and if the absce of extded families (versus presce) dicates such enomie weight of the nuclear family, th bilaterality (versus unileality) should be apanied proportionally more oft by the absce of extded families (versus presce thereof). PREDICTION E. umeration for S I : bil. unil. umeration for bil. S II: unil. only nucl. families (also) ext. families Sgle patrily and sgle matri- ly suated. Result of the prediction for S 1: 46/100 ~ 90/183; virtually no direction and virtually. wholly uniformly distributed. Result for S I I : 53/99 ~ 84/179; the right direction is hardly noticeable, the distribution is almost uniform. Prediction E has be falsified. which of the lks did our error lie? I do not thk we have to doubt a priori that the aforemtioned weight of the nuclear family (what we called depdt production versus depdt) rrectly dicates the level of the productioti forces, sce politi-enomic society analysis has from case to case repeatedly nfirmed the rrectnëss/öf this pot of departuré: the highër thé: level of the prodüction forces and especially the technogical level, the more depdt dividual prodüction or depdt family production, as I called them, appear to be possible. Another possible source of error is that bilaterality versus unileality may not be modern the sse we have described. We will still irivestigate this pot. For the time beg we mairita our'hypothesis to the ntrary. There remas the pbssibility that the absce or presce of extded families does n o t rrelate with depdt or depdt familiy production. We now assume so expratively o» the basis of the result of prediction E. If our assumption is rrect, it means with the framework of the theoretical explanation attempted above that presce or absce of extded families does n o t rrelate with the level of the prodüction forces. view of my origal pot of departuré, laid down the falsified prediction E, this would be rather amazg. If presce or absce of extded families does n o t appear to rrelate with archaism. or modernity of the enomy (another dicator of the level of the production farces), this strgths the expratively found new hypothesis. This new hypothesis may be deemed to have be found on the basis of the result of prediction E for S I. S I therefore remas an exprative group. (It should be clearly understood that this new case we set our urse by the rrectness of the null hypothesis.) (Prediction F.) the folwg two unts the first number under the headgs "bil.", "patrily", "matrily" and "hor.tot" (horizontal totals) dicates each time thé number of societies, characterised by "purely depdt nuclear families" (i.e. absce of extded families). The send number dicates each time the number of societies where (also) extded families predomate as a mass phomon. PREDICTION F. bilateral syst. extract, subs. (0-3) non-extr. also non-dustr. dustrialised vert. totals umeration for i5 I : patrily matrily 7 60 5 65 hor. tot. Result: 31/67 ~ 101/208 ~ 4/8. Préd. F verified, for the time beg expratively. Moreover, patrily versus matrily appears to rrelate neither with presce nor absce of extded families. A non-relevant detail is that, an absolute sse, the population nitas presumably about as many societies with as without extded families. bilateral syst. patrily matrily hor. tot. extract, subs. (0-3) non-extr. also non-dustr. dustrialised vert. totals Under the most favourable proportions (but theii' a g a i n expratively) it folws from S II (dustrialised societies versus all other) that the "exclusively depdt nuclear families" (i.e. absce of extded families) sre occurs proportionally significantly more oft the dustrialised societies: 3/3 > 134/275; z = 2.0688. Ev if this result had not aga be exprative, we would have to mbe with z S i for the rrespondg proportions. This makes 4/8 ~ 134/277 with a z of 0.02. Ztotai is nsequtly 2.0888. If we divide this by V2, the result is 1.48 P r totai is: 0.0694. The alternative hypothesis remas, therefore, unnfirmed, and our prediction F is verified by test: the subsistce type does n o t significantly rrelate with the presce or absce of extded families (versus exclusively depdt nuclear families). The enomie weight of the nuclear family ( the sse of producg depdtly or depdtly) may perhaps be told also from the residce of the nuclear family. If the marital residce is neocal (versus all other possibilities), one may expect the nuclear family to produce relatively depdtly, proportionally more oft. Neocality versus all other possibilities should th proportionally more oft be apanied by relatively depdt production (which cannot be ferred from the EA), by a higher level of the production forces (which cannot be directly ferred from the EA either), by a higher technogical level (not directly ferable from the EA aga), possibly by modern for of enomy (versus archaic) and -- if bilaterality is more modern oomparison with unileality -- also by bilaterality. If the last-mtioned rrelation were to exist, it would not iediately folw that bilaterality is more modern than unileality, but it see to me that this may be ferred for the time beg. After all: neocality may be deemed, at least by way of workg hypothesis, to rrelate very strongly with so-called depdt production by the nuclear family. I for one do not know of any stance ethnography of a society which neocal families do not as a rule gage such mparatively depdt produotion; (Ev the case of uriempymt and relief a prest-day capitalistic society the neocal nuclear family formally still produces depdtly!) So if -- notably also if we leave the dustrialised societies out of the unt -- bilaterality (versus unileality) were to rrelate significantly with neocality (versus all other possibilities), the greater survival ability of bilaterality is proved aga: it survives better than unileality the case of relatively depdt production by the nuclear family, i.e. the case of a relatively higher level of the production farces, i.e. modernity, also with the framework of one and the same category of enomies. We shall quire first whether neocality of the nuclear family (l. 16 of the EA, de N and all des dg N) versus all other possibilities (all other des of ooi. 16, EA) is apanied proportionally mo're oft by dustrialised enomy (versus all other types). (Prediction G.) Th we shall quire whether bilaterality (versus each form of unileality or at least not through the fluce of only one form of unileality) occurs proportionally more oft the evt of neocality (versus all other possibilities of marital residce), ev if we leave the dustrialised societies out of the unt. (Predictions H and H'.) the unt folwg bew, the first number under the headgs "bil", "matril.", "patril." and "hor.tot." give each time the number of societies with any marital neocality wörth mtiong (cf. the sre book the annex: l. 16, des 1 and 2n). The send number gives each time the number of societies without any marital neocality worth mtiong. (Sre book: 2 of l. 16.) PREDICTIONS G; H and H'. umeration for !5 I : enomy bilateral patrily matrily hor. tot. éxtractive (0-3) non 0--3 also non-dustr. dustrial vert. totals enomy bilateral patrily matrily hor. tot. éxtractive (0-3) non 0--3 also non-dustr. dustrial vert. totals The result for prediction G is for S I 8/8 > 50/278 and for S II 3/3 > 58/288. No calculation is necessary, nsiderg that 3/3 > 134/275 with a z of 2.0688. (Result for S II pred. F, see above.) The rrelation betwe marital neocality on the onê hand, and dustrialisation on the other (versus non-neocality and non-dustrialisation) is particularly cse. This is proved, acrdg to the above, by test and retest. Thus we have strgthed our hypothesis as to the relatively modern character of marital neocality. We had already elucidated statistically that bilaterality is relatively modern sofar as it is more csely lked with dustrialisation than either form of unileality. (Pred. B above.) It is now important to show first, if possible, that neocality (whose relatively modern character is established for the time beg) -- versus non-neocality -- is lked more csely with bilaterality (versus unileality), if we leaye the dustrialised cultures out of the unt. (Pred. H'.) The proportions most favourable for our prediction appear to be, acrdg to the unt for S I, those betwe bilaterality and matrily. Result for S I : 17/94 ~ 6/46; z = 0.7707; P r = 0.22. Not significant; right direction. And for S II: 29/101 ~ or > 8/48; z = 1.6279; P r = 0.0516. Unless rounded to 2 decimals, just not significant; right direction. Wh mbed (ztotai = Zsi + z s n , together divided by 1.4142) bemes z tot ai: 1.646 and P r total bemes: 0.0446. This is significant -- on the borderle -- but hardly acceptable, as we are elimatg only partially. (Cf. our other article, notably the nclusion.) For this reason we may n o t say off-hand that, upon replication and mbation, societies with bilateral syste appear to sre marital neocality proportionally more oft than societies with unileal syste do. We now test for the most unfavourable proportions S I : bilaterality versus patrily. Result for S I : 17/94 ·-> 27/138; z bemes negative, but the wrong direction is not significant. For the rest it appears from the result' of pred. L (Ch. 5 of this article) that, like the bilateral syste (see above), the patrileal ones do n o t significantly sre neocality proportionally more oft than the matrileal syste do. Result -- back to pred. H' -- for bilaterality versus patrily S I I : 29/101 > 21/136; z = 2.5060; P r = 0.00523. mbation is not alwed, sce the result for S I wt the wrong direotion. If we test for the whole without mbation -- purely for the sake of mparison -- the result is just not significant either: 46/195 ~ 48/274 on the 5% level. And ev if P r totai had be precisely 5% or slightly less, we would not have be alwed -- see above -- to accept this result here off-hand. It has, therefore, appeared thus far that bilaterality versus matrily, like bilaterality versus patrily, wh replicated, do n o t (or both cases precisely on the borderle) sre proportionally more oft marital neocality (versus all other residce possibilities), if we drop the dustrialised societies from the unt. Now if bilaterality versus the suated for of sgle unileality does appear to sre relatively more oft marital neocality, this would verify prediction H', sce th the result c a n n o t be attributed to the fluce of only one of the two categories of unileality. If we put here bilaterality versus matrily plus patrily, the result for S I is : 17/94 ~ 33/184; z -- 0.2646;' hardly right direction. For S I I : 29/101 > 29/184; z = 2.5573; P r = 0.00523. Wh mbed ztotai bemes: (2.5573 + 0.2646) divided by 1.4142 = 2.00 runded to 2 decimals. P r totai bemes: 0.0228, for our purpose a quite acceptable P-value on the 5% level. Prediction H' verified by replication and mbation. Prediction H, where the dustrialised societies are cluded the unts and the result aga is n o t fluced by only one of the categories of unileal syste, is true a fortiori. The verification of predictions G, H and H' strgths the hypothesis that bilaterality, other than dustrialised societies too, is lked proportionally more oft with a more modern mode of production than (sgle) unileality is. 3. MARRIAGE SYSTEM AND DESCT. We return to the cross-us marriage system ( = C). As appears from prediction A of Ch. 2 of this article, C (versus all other possible marriage sy sterns) occurs proportiotially more oft with (each of the) sgle unileal syste than with bilaterality. ntug the le of our precedg argumt, C must th be a more archaic marriage system ( = m) than another designation of marriage partners, all nsidered. If this is true, it may be assumed that C is positively rrelatéd with non-dustrialisation. Now we know from pred B (Ch. 2 above) that, acrdance with the test prediction, bilaterality is positively rrelatéd with dustrialisation. Sce C turn occurs proportionally more ofte with unileality (versus bilaterality), the predictioti that C and non-dustrialisation will be rrelatéd, is not, therefore, altogether depdt. On the other hand, if A is rrelatéd with B, and B is rrelatéd with. C, it does n o t necessarily folw that A is rrelatéd with C. We shall therefore make the prediction that C (versus the other m) occurs relatively more oft non-düstrialised societies (Pred. I). If this prediction is verified, it will mean some further strgthihg of our overall argumt: C (versus all other m), unileality (versus bilaterality) and marital non-neocality (versus neocality) are lked relatively more oft with a more archaic mode of productión (versus the peak of modernity: dustrialisation). PREDICTION I (i). umeration for S I: enomy no C umeration for SII: no C extractive non 0--3 also non-dustr. dustr. vert. totals C 15 C 12 Result for S I: 8/8 > 216/278; z = 2.000; P r = 0.0228. Result for S II: 3/3 ~ 223/285; z = 1.2083; P r = 0.1113; right direction. mbed: z s i + zs ii, together divided by 1.4142; z = 2.27; P r t,,tai = 0.0116. Amply verified replication and mbation. this nmection I would mtion FOX'S (1967, notably p. 227) explanation about so-called elemtary and mplex marriage syste, although this author does not at the c. cit. advance statistical proof. Folwg LÉVI-STRAUSS, FOX says that elemtary marriage syste are syste under which it is not only prescribed or preferred with what desct group one must n o t marry at any rate, namely ego's desct group -- it therefore ncerns an exogamy rule -- but under which it is also dicated with what desct group(s) one should (preferably) marry. What FOX on the other hand calls "mplex marriage syste", are syste which -- thus far -- have ntaed some form of systematic exogamy, but without any mpulsory rule or systematic preferce as regards any other specific desct group, with which ego would have to choose the marriage partner, FOX says: "mplex syste are not nfed by any means to 'advanced' untries or cultures, but occur through the range of social types. Truly elemtary syste, however, do not seem mpatible with large dustrial social structures." Under the theory set forth this article, mplex syste should th be called relatively modern because of their greater survival ability. We would have to vestigate whether they, versus the elemtary syste, are statistically more csely nnected with dustrialisation, neocality and bilaterality (versus non-dustrialisation, non-neocality and sgle unileality). Unfortunately, this cannot be done with the aid of the EA, as the EA does n o t dicate whether the possible exogamy funotions an elemtary or mplex marnier (neither lumns 20 and 22, nor l. 25, or to my knowledge anywhere else). FOX'S characteristic of the practical effect of elemtary versus mplex marriage syste meanwhile agrees with the theory we have tested. Elemtary marriage syste are aimed -- says FOX -- at matance of fixed relationships as regards the exchange of marriage partners betwe each time two desct groups throughout gerations. This can be se most clearly -- he adds -- the case of syetrical C; th the childr of brothers marry aga and aga, from geration to geration, the childr of sisters of such brothers, " . . . thus keepg marriage the family, as it were .. ." mplex syste -- FOX ntues -- by no means promote permant ties betwe each time two desct groups, " . . . but distribute people widely around the society . . . " It is theoretically obvious -- so we nclude -- that mplex syste (versus elemtary ones) are not only nneoted relatively more csely with dustrialisation, but also with bilaterality and neocality, while the elemtary syste will rather lk up with sgle unileality and non-neocality. societies with elemtary syste the weight of the nuclear family as so-called depdt production group (see Ch, 2) will be less; under the mplex syste on the other hand, the nuclear family will have greater weight this respect. This tallies with the view set forth this article on the relative nnectedness of bilaterality, neocality and absce of C with a more modern mode of productrón, while unileality, non-neocality and C are relatively csely lked with a more archaic mode of production. 4. DESCT AND MODE OF PRODUCTION. Further to the foregog, we would add a few observations about the nnection we assume to exist betwe desct system and mode of production, with a view, ter alia, to the attempt we are gog to make prestly to fd a better theoretical explanation of HOMAS and SCHNEIDER'S figures. (Cf. Ch. 1 of this article.) the same way, as acrdg to the foregog, bilaterality represts a more modern type of desct system than is represted by a n y unileality ( = each of the unileal syste or at least the suated societies with sgle unileal syste, acrdg to the statistical results of a series of predictions), patrily uld be a more modern type of desct system than matrily, or just the other way round. The more modern type of the two should th appear to be relatively csely lked with non-C and/or marital neocality and/or dustrialisation (versus C, non-neocality and non-dustrialisation respectively). Ethnographic literature nveys a geral impression that patrily has a greater survival ability than matrily, and for that reason we are gog to predict presitly (Ch. 5 bew) that patrily as mpared with matrily will sre C relatively less oft, and/or marital neocality relatively more oft, and/or dustrialisation relatively more oft, apart from further test predictions which will be discussed Chapters 5 and 6. We wish to give some further explanation as to the basis of our assumption that patrily is relatively more modern than matrily. First, we believe that patrily is more than matrily lked with androcracy versus gynecracy. This has not yet be nfirmed statistically, sce we do not (yet) have any sample this respect available. For some dividual cases -- African Pygmies and Australian autochthons of North Arnhem Land -- the prest author feels he has advanced sufficit proof on the basis of ethnographic data, not only that the prest androcracy has be preceded by gynecracy, but also that, with the framework of such gynecracy -- sometimes ntrary to a now domant patrily -- desct was determed matrileally (DE LEEUWE, 1962, 1964, 1965, 1966). Wh I claimed that the relative nnectedness betwe matrily (versus patrily) and gynecracy has not (yet) be nfirmed statistically, I may have be too severe, acquiescg provisionally (maybe wrongly) the stubborn dial, by certa ethnogists and cultural anthropogists, of the nature of a series of ethnographic particulars which are fact descriptions of as many gynecratic phoma. ( this nnection one should nsider not only political, enomie, religious and other practices of our times, but also what is refleoted myths and rites abouit past political, enomie, religious and other practices. The latter categories of data are the more strikg and nvcg sce, spite of the currt androcracy such a society, they unambiguously teil of past gynecracy, sometimes cludg a legdary acunt of the urse of the androcratic revolution.) (DE LEEUWE, ib.) If SCHNEIDER says (1962, p. 6) that "... Positiotis of highest authority with the matrileal desct group will . . . ordarily be vested staituses occupied by m . . . " and that "... the role of m is defed as that of havg authority over wom and childr (except perhaps for specially qualifyg nditions applicable to a very few wom of the society) ...", he has no statistical result whatever to support this claim, neither here nor anywhere else has book of over 750 pages. Moreover, I repeat, he takes no acunt of data that have me tó us through myths and rites. Furthermore, he hielf restricts the spe of his fdg wh he admits: a) "... there m a y be (my spacg, d. L.) a systematic rrelation such that male-held statuses have authority over those statuses occupied by wom or childr . . . " (ib. p. 7); b) "The status of wife has relevance to the domestic sphere; the status of mother's brother matrileal syste, to the desct-group sphere. The alcation of authority with the domestic sphere must be dis- tguished from the alcation of authority with the desct-group sphere and these turn distguished from the religious sphere, the political sphere, and so forth." (ib. pp. 6/7); e) "For our purpose only two spheres are iediately important: the domestic sphere and the desct-group sphere." (p. 7). It appears from item a that systematic superiority of male status over female status is not sufficitly established. Item b shows that the "desct-group sphere" has be holwed out -- sce religion, politics "and so forth" are excluded -- and is moreover vague and non-operational, for what precisely bgs to the "desct-group sphere" th ? Item c shows that SCHNEIDER evidtly leaves politics, religion "and so forth" out of nsideration and restriots hielf to the no more c'sely defed "domestic sphere" on the one hand, and to the "desctgroup sphere" on the other, which we have shown to be both holwed out and vague. Now GOUGH clai the same publication (1962, p. 519) that wom seem to have relatively greater "formal legal authority" the leadership of desct groups with "settled cultivatg societies of west productivity". As productivity and political ctralisationi crease -- says GOUGH -- "wom appear to beme more defitely subordate to their male heads." The possibility remas, acrdg to this author, that " . . . Sior wom of desct groups . . . reta a formal role the selection or stallation of male heads . . . " We may add that the societies ( s t i l l ) existg ftoday, which wom joy more or less enomie and political leadership, have propontionally oft a subsistce enomy which is governed by horticulture with the aid of light tools. ( a series of cases only traces are left of the presumed gatherg gynecracies, precedg the n o w existg huntg androcracy. DE LEEUWE, 1962, 1964, 1965, 1966.) the case of domant horticulture with the aid of light tools, or at least without any large cattle to speak of, the horticulture is sometimes carried out by wom and under the direction of wom. Wom of the maternal le sometimes own the gards. The significance of huntg and/or fishg carried out by m ranks bew that of horticulture here. The enomie and political authority of wom and the matrileage today and thé past see to be nnected therewith. (Cf. also DE LEEUWE, aforemtioned publications.) Well, it is those societies -- maly supported by this kd of horticulture -- which are proportionally more oft matrileal than patriléal or bilateral. This has be calculated -- apart from the theory set forth here -- by ABERLE (1%2) with the aid of a sample tak ang guidg les issued by G. p. MURDOCK, SO that this sample is mparable with the one used the prest article and by HOMANS and SCHNEIDER. ABERLE'S umeration 1962, p. 677): Subsistce type: Dom. horticulture Other Vertical totals expration (derived from his table 17-4, Bilat. system 68 136 204 Patril. system 66 182 248 Matril. system 47 37 84 Result of ABERLE'S expration double-tail test (We are titled to make a sgle-tail test): 47/84 > 66/248; X2 = 24.029; P < 0.001. (Actually 47/84 ^ 66/248) . 47/84> 68/204; X2 = 12.578; P < 0.001. (Actually 47/84 ^ 68/204) 68/204-»66/248; not sign. (And not relevant for us here.) What we are claimg the above argumt is that matrily is proportionally more oft nnected with gynecraitic phoma than patrily, and that anidrocratic phoma occur proportionally more oft the case of patrily, nsiderg also what is known of a society's past from history and through myths and rites. We have also argued that patrily (versus matrily) is lked relatively more oft with modern (versus archaic) production. Before ciitg statistics support of this claim, I wish to remd the reader of the differt charaoter of androcracy under matrily and under patrily. SCHNEIDER'S and GOUGH'S book (1962) too, it is evidt that androcracy under matrily oft means an authoritative position of ego's (woman) brother or mother's brother respectively, whereas the man as husband and father has not much of a voice. the case of patrily, however, the man has authority as husband and father (and n o t as brother of his sister or uncle of his sister's childr). If the man has authority as his sister's brother, he has it prciple over more than one sister. Of ur se, there can be also more than one authoritative brother. Anyhow, several nuclear families are csely lked prciple this way. It may be assumed that th, notably production, the weight of the nuclear family is relatively more oft slight (so-called depdt production, see Ch. 2), mparison with a situation whicb the man has autority as husband and father. the latter case several families m a y , of urse, be csely lked production; and depdt production by the nuclear family may be lackg. But if the man has authority as bis sister's brother, the system implies formally a cse relationship of more than one nuclear family each case. This would serve to expla a better survival ability of patrily versus matrily and the fact that patrily would be apanied proportionally more oft by a relatively more modern mode of production. Without precisely opposg patrily and matrily, GOUGH does underle that "matrileal syste are likely to be rare association with nditions of the highest productivity and political mplexity." (Cf. ABERLE, 1962, p. 717.) S. MATRILY VERSUS PATRILY. As said already, if matrily versus patrily is statistically significantly lked with more archaic production, or with phoma which we turn have deemed to be lked with more archaic production, th matrily versus patrily will sre relatively more oft "nondustrialised" and/or "C" and/or "non-neocal" (Pred. J, K and L). PREDICTION J. umeration for S I: enomy matrily patrily matrily patrily non-dust. dustrialised vertical totale It is clear without further calculation that there is no significant distction here betwe matrily and patrily, so that the prediction is falsified. Meanwhile, the EA ntas another dustrialised society with patrileal descit system, but not a sgle one with matrileal desct system. This mimum of right direction is a reason to expre further, namely wiith elimation of the dustrialised peak, sce appartly neither patrily nor matrily atta it adequate measure. PREDICTION J'. umeration for S I : enomy 0--3 non 0--3 also non-dust. vertical totals Result for S I : 126/138 > 37/46; z = 1.9150; P r = 0.0281. Result for S I I : 122/136 ~ 40/48; z =· practically O. 1.9150 Ztotai wh mbed = 1.4142 The prediction is falsified; the direction is right. We shall revert to it folwg prediotion L. PREDICTION K. umeration for S I : matrily C other vert. tot. 24 22 46 patrily 25 113 138 Result fOT S I : 24/46 > 25/136; z > 2.3; P r < 0.01. (mpare the result, with more unfavourable proportions, for S II.) = 1.35; P r = 0.0885. matrily 9 37 46 patrily 12 126 138 matrily 8 40 48 patrily 14 122 136 matrily C other vert. tot. 19 29 48 patrily 30 107 137 Result for S I I : 19/48 > 30/137; z = 2.3302; P r = 0.0099. mbation not required. The prediction is verified by test and retest. societies with patrileal (versus matrileal) desct system, therefore, marriages with the csest permitted relative, whether classificatory or not, occur to an appreciably lesser degree. PREDICTION L. umeration for S I : marit. res.: matrily patrily matrily patrily neocal non-neocal vert. totals The result for S II is slightly the wrong direction (16.6% versus 16.0%). nsequtly no mbation is alwed and the result for the whole bemes: 49/275 ~ 14/94; z = 0.65727; P r = 0.2546. Like Pred. J (or J'), prediction L is falsified. Sce both show right direction, we will ntue to expre for extreme cases, meang that we predict that societies srg both 0-3 and non-neocal (versus both "non 0-3 also non-dustrialised" and neocal) will sre proportionally more oft matrileally than patrileallly (Pred. J' L'). PREDICTION J ' L ' . umeration for S I : subs. type & marit. res.: matrily patrily matrily patrily 14 0--3 also non-neocal "non 0--3 also non-dust." & neocal vert. totals It is arguable whether one is obliged to nsider this prediction exprarive: after all we have not derived any new theory from our figures, but only tested for extreme cases what we had put forward already as an a priori theory. Nevertheless we shall unt the prediction as exprative: we shall replicate and mbe and yet claim we have tested not twice but only once. We must pot out that the frequcies are just on the borderle for the /-test. This will, therefore, prest the first stance a slightly too favourable picture for our prediction, but mbation on the other hand will have an unfavourable effect, as can be se from a test for the undivided total (S I + S II). This fal test shows that: 16/29 > 24/71; z = 1.9672; P r = 0.0250. Replicated and mbed, the result of Prediction J' L' bemes: for S I : 8/13 > 10/38; z = 2.583; P r = 0.0119. (With FEPT: P r = 0.05!) for S I I : 8/16 ~ 14/33; z = 0.50; P r = 0.3085. Hardly right direction. And mbed: z = 2.2583 + 0.5000 ' = 1.950; P r -- 0.0256. 1.4142 Acceptable to us on the 5 % level. Our hypothesis that patrily versus matrily is lked more csely with modern (versus archaic) mode of production, has be nfirmed by the facts that Pred. K has proved rrect, the results of Predictions J and L wt the right direction and that, nnected with the latter, Pred. J' L' yielded a positive result; patrily versus matrily is lked relatively more strongly with other than cross-us marriage syste, versus C, and with other than extractive subsistce type (dustrialisation havg be left out of the unt), versus extractive subsistce type, provided the former subsistce type (versus the latter) is apanied by marital neocality (versus non-neocality). We may now recall HOMAS and SCHNEIDER'S results (cf. Ch. 1 of this article). They found that obligation or preferee for marryg the MBD (versus marriage to the FZD) occurs proportionally more oft under patrileal desct system (versus matrileal system). We stressed Ch. 1 that -- ntrary to the theory nneoted by HOMANS and SCHNEIDER to their figures -- the statistical result they obtaed and the figures obtaed by replication of their research: show that matrily appears to be very well mpatible with MBDm, but patrily hardly so wjth FZDm. (So H; & s. are right as regards the latter.) Ch. 7 we shall devep a theory -- based part on ethnographic data -- to expla this phomon. This theory fits the more mprehsive theory that patrily is relatively more modem than matrily and that bilaterality is relatively more modern than unileality. other words: the theory that bilaterality is better adapted to a moder mode of production (versus more archaic) than unileality, and that patrily turn is better adapted to a modern mode of production than matrily. If we base ourselves on this theory also as regards MBDm versus FZDm, we must prediot that MBDm will be actnpanied.by marital neoiocality (versus non-neocality) relatively more oft than FZDm (Pred. M). On the other hand we might suspect that bilaterality sres MBDm (versus FZDm) relatively more oft than unileality does (Pred. M'). It will appear bew that both predictions do not get us any further than "right. directio. view of the natured the, figures sonr the one hand, and the results obtaed with our other predictions so far on the other, we should take acunt of the possibility that the w freqücies here make it difficult to obta significant figures. Societies with MBDm sre neocality more than twice as much as societies with FZDm do. Further: bilaterality no nger sres any FZDm at all, ntrary to unileality. PREDICTION M. marit. c.: neo non-neo vert. totals umeration for S I : MBDm FZDm MBDm FZDm For the total, P r bemes approx. 0.17. Falsified. Right direction. PREDICTION M'. umeration for S I: m.: bil. patri. matri. MBD 2 14 8 FZD 0 0 5 bil. patri. matri. 2 14 6 0 1 2 vert. totals 2 14 13 2 15 8 For the most favourable proportions, the total is also not significant: 4/4 ~ 14/21. 6. MATRILEAL, PATRILEAL AND BILATERAL SYSTE; SUARY OF OUR EMPIRICAL RESULTS. Chapters 2, 3 and 5, on the basis of three dicators -- namely system of acquirg the marriage partner, marital residce and subsistce type -- we have feit able to fd statistical support for the hypothesis that bilaterality is lked relatively more oft with a modern (versus archaic) mode of production than sgle unileality -- without this beg affected by the fluce of only one of the two categories of unileality. Likewise patrily is lkedl relatively more oft with a more modern mode of production than matrily. Thanks to ABERLE we are also able to vestigate this for some other dicators. Usg the WES -- so that his sample is sufficitly mparable with our S I + S II -- he expred a number of possibilities. so dog he subdivided the subsistce enomy further than MURDOCK did. Wh we use the WES or lumn 7 of the EA we can, for example, put extraotive (fal 2 figures lumn 7 together not more than 3) agast non-extractive; we can, if desired, also make the tripartition 0^3, 4-7 and 8-10. (The fal 2 figures lumn 7 of the EA are th not more than 3; not less than 4 and not more than 7; at least 8, etc.) By means of lumns 42 to 62 of the EA we can, moreover, distguish betwe dustrialisation and non-dustrialisation. (The düstrialisêd societies me without exception the 8-10 group, as expected.) ABERLE has made a fer subdivision of the non-extractive, i.e. the 4-10 societies (1962, pp. 671 ff.), expressg more directly the level of the production forces and especially the technogical level. He distguishes betwe: domant pugh-agriculture (mbed with keepg large cattle) ; African horticulture (mbed with keepg large cattle) ; domant horticulture (without large cattle to speak of); other horticulture (horticulture not ane domant, moreover no pasturage as the two subsequt classes); pasturage of the Old World; pasturage of the New World; extractive methods. It is possible -- we have not verified this -- that domant pughagriculture strongly rrelates with 8-10; it is likely that all dustrialised societies me fo the domant pugh-agriculture category; it is certa that the domant pugh-agriculture category is nsiderably wider spe than the dustrialized peak and, furthermore, that with ABERLE'S subdivision which mprises all the material, domaut pugh-agriculture is the category with the most highly deveped forces of production or technogical level, i.e. the class roughly represtg the most moder mode of production with this subdivision. Prediction J Ch. 5 of this article ("patrily, versus matrily, sres proportionally more oft dustry versus non-dustry") uld not be verified, if only because unileality so rarely attas the dustrial peak: patrily S I + S II once, versus matrily never. Pred. J' ("patrily, versus matrily, sres proportionally more oft 4-10 versus 0-3, leavg the dustrialised societies out of the unt") was falsified as well. Only wh 4-10 was suated with marital neocality (Pred. J' L') -- neocality itself was not a sufficit dicator either (Pred. L) -- the result becatne significant: patrileal syste, versus matrileal, sre proportionally more oft 4-10 and at the same time neocal, versus 0-3 and at the same time non-neocal. Evidtly 4-10 was here too broad a "peak" and mdustrialisaition too narrów. We will repeat the prediction with ABERLÊ'S domant pugh-agriculture versus all other subsistce types: patrily, versus matrily, should th sre proportionally more oft pugh-agriculture (Pred. N). Acrdg 9/84; z = 3.3912; P r = 0.000337. Prediction N verified. The special hypothesis, on which that prediction is based, fds very strong support. Result of Pred. N ' : 38/166 ~ 78/332; reverse, but not significantly so (23.5% versus 21.9%). Prediction falsified. Upon further expration Pred. N ' appears to be valid for what our theory are extreme cases: bilaterality versus matrily. Result: 38/204 > 9/84; z = 1.7008; P r = 0.0446. Ev apart from the faot that we so determe expratively, it is doubtful if we are permitted to accept this, ABERLE havg applied not a sgle one of MURDOCK'S later elimation rules. Keepg on the safe side, we reject our hypothesis ev for these extreme cases. As for bilaterality versus patrily, these proportions are ev significantly reverse (calculation is left to the reader this time), so that the 5omewhat amazg result obtaed through expration is that not bilaterality, but patrily (versus matrily and versus bilaterality) is relatively the most csely lked with domant pugh-agriculture. other words: the greater survival ability of bilaterality appears at the top only from the virtually total supremacy of bilaterality dustrialised societies. The cause of the failure of Prediction N ' lies the greater survival ability of bilaterally (versus patrily and versus matrily) not only at the extreme peak, but also with. the 0-3 category. nfer likewise Predictions C, C', C" and D Ch. 2. With the framework of the "broader peak", namely the societies with domant pugh-agriculture -- versus all other subsistce types, with the extractive ones left out of the unt -- bilaterality is not found relatively significantly more oft than patrily, as may appear from the exprative Prediction N " which we are gog to test now. PREDICTION . umeration (Based on 1962, p. 677): subsistce type: bilaterality ABERLE'S table 17-4, matrily patrily dom. pugh-agr. other (except extractive) vertical totals Result for bilaterality versus patrily plus matrily: 38/143 ~ 78/300; z almost O. bilaterality versus matrily: 38/143 > 9 / 7 1 ; z = 2.3917; P r = 0.0084. bilaterality versus patrily: 38/143 «*' 29/229; not sign. Direction reverse of that of prediction. The provisional nclusion may be drawn that, for levels of production: forces, at least for subsistce types -- if one folws ABERLE'S classification -- lyg betwe extractive methods and dustrialisation, bilaterality does not always show a greater survival ability than patrily, but both dividually do survive proportionally more oft than matrily. A variable, with which we had not be ncerned thus far, is the number of members or the nature of the political unit. MURDOCK the W E S mixed these two standards, for which ABERLE (1962, 680-681) rightly criticised him. ( the EA MURDOCK remedied this error.) Meanwhile, ABERLE does use MURDOCK'S variable from the W E S , presupposg that MURDOCK'S "family groups", "groups with unity authority" and "peace groups", mprise as a rule fewer than 1,500 persons each. MURDOCK and ABERLE speak of "mimal states" wh the culture-bearg unit question mprises 1,500 persons or more but fewer than 10,000. For 10,000 to 100,000 persons per society they use the term "little states", whereas the category over 100,000 persons is called "states". . To my md the variable is poorly based theory. It is not sufficitly clear how MURDOCK arrivés at his numbers, whereas the term "state" is used superficially. ABERLE observes: " political theory the ncept of 'state' normally implies ctralised ntrol of the legitimate use of force." It may be noted passg that this too is vague: for a society to be a state, it requires the first place a politi-enomically rulg and possessg class and sendly a systematically organised machery of power ntrolled by such class. Such machery is the state. We shall use MURDOCK'S and ABERLE'S termogy without subscribg to it the least. It would seem that the variable is suitable for use with the framework of our discussion, because there are politi-eeonomic reasons to assume that bigger unities (m- prisg 100,000 persons or more) are anyhow lked relatiyely more oft with the most modern mode of production. the first stance we shall make the peak fairly broad and test it (on the basis of ABERLE'S figures) as to domant pugh-agriculture versus all other for of subsistce type (Pred. O). PREDICTION O. umeration (Acrdg to ABERLE'S table 17-5, 1962, p. 682): subsist. type: "states" "non-states" dom. pugh-agr. 53 45 other 26 402 vert. totals 79 447 Result of the prediction : 53/79 > 45/447. P r < 0.0001. Calculation unnecessary if mpared with results of a number of other predictions. Verified. Next we predict that patrileal syste versus maitrileal ones sre "state" proportionally more oft (Pred. P), and that bilaterality does so relatively more ofte than does each of the categories of sgle unileality, or at least than the suated categories of unileality, without this beg due to the fluce of only one of the two categories of unileality (Pred. ). PREDICTIONS P and . umeration (Acrdg to ABERLE'S table 17-7, 1962, p. 687): "states" "non-states" horizontal totals bilateral syste patrileal syst. matrileal syst. vertical totals sum total: 536 Result of Pred. P : 37/248 > 4/84; z = 2.6627; P r = 0.00391. Verified. Result of Pred. : bil. vs. matril.: bil. vs. patril.: bil. vs. pat + mat.: 36/204 > 4/84; z = 3.1305; P r = 0.000968. 36/204 ~ 37/248; z = 0.781; P r = 0.2177. Right direction. 36/204 > 41/332; z = 1.6823; P r = 0.0456. Pred. is falsified to the extt that the significance for the tire material is exclusively owg to the matrileal syste. Here too, patrily appears to have great survival ability. On the other hand the limit drawn by MURDOCK ("state ces at 100,000 persons") is obviously a cause of this result. We may suarize our results from Chapters 2 to 6 the folwg diagra, which we will use the folwg symbols and abbreviations: > for : the category first mtioned the headg over the vertical row has sred significantly more oft, proportionally, the category first mtioned the headg before the horizontal row, acrdance with the prediction. NOTE : The tables are always 2 x 2 . for: mutatis mutandis right direction. rd (rd) for: ditto, but th hardly right direction. O for: practically no direction. (wd) for: ditto, but th hardly wrong direction. wd < for : mutatis mutandis wrong direction. for: ditto, but significantly a direction ntrary to that of the prediction. After each of the above symbols and abbreviations mes the letter of the prediction from the precedg chapters which the praportion question is found. For the rest the abbreviations used earlier the article are used here. It is possible to derive from the above 34 mplete predictions which, it is true, are not all mutually depdt, but of which, on the other hand, none is to be derived mpulsorily a priori from any other. Twty of these 34 have be verified, distributed over the diagram such a way as to support the hypothesis that each case the category mtioned first a headg over a vertical row or before a horizontal row is lked proportionally more oft with modern (versus archaic) mode of productiön. This is notably also true for bilaterality versus patrily and versus matrily and furthermore for patrily versus matrily. Six predictions yielded a result the right direction, five yielded no direction; three times the result wt the wrong direction, of which ónce significantly sp. uu DIAGRAM 1. bil. (vs. pat. -f- mat.) bil. (vs. pat.) bil. (vs. mat.) pat. (vs. mat.) > (HOM.&SCH.) MBDm (FZDm) nón-C (C) only dep. nuc. fam. (also ext. fam.) marit. neoc. (non) dust. (non) 0--3 plus Ii (other) neoc. also 4--10 but non-i (0--3 also non-neol.) pugh-agr. (non) pl.-agr. (other save extractive) rd > M' A (rd) M' A' > rd > M' A' O > > > E H B C rd > > F H'2 B rd > > F H'2 B rd (rd) L J C'C" C'C" wd J'L' > > > "state" (other) 0 > wd rd the totality of our theory fit moreover the predictions of which the results are set forth Diagram 2, mposed the same way as Diagram 1: DIAGRAM 2. marit. neocal (non) no C (C) dom. pugh-agr. (non) dustr. (vs. non) > G > I MBDm (FZDm) rd M "state" (non-"state") > O 3 This rd plus the folwg (precedg) jotly value > , acrdg to the test prediction. our sre book (see annex), on the dividg le betwe lumns 20 and 22, some societies are marked K. This means that an ego-ctred bilateral dêsct system is perhaps or certaly applied (EA l. 24, B or K). These societies appeared, sofar as we have vestigated, to be statistically tndistguishable from others as regards variables relevant for us. 7. A DIFFERT TERPRETATION OF HOMANS' AND SCHNEIDER'S FIGURES. If our theory is table, it means ter alia that patrily and MBDm are lked relatively more oft with a more modern mode of production, whereas matrily and FZDm are lked relatively more csely with a more archaic mode of production. We have already poted to the peculiarity that matrily and MBDm are not mpatible at all, but that patrily and FZDm match very badly (Ch. 1 of this article). Before discussg this detail, we would recall the fal seetton of Ch. 3, notably the last paragraph. Further to an explanation by FOX we noted that not only mplex marriage syste, but also bilaterality, go better with a relatively modern mode of production, with the sgle family havg a mparatively heavy enomie wedght, expressed the form of so-called depdt family production, of which marital neocality is turn a relatively rrect dicator. Sómethg like this would have to apply to patrily versus matrily and to marriage to the MBD versus marriage to the FZD. the precedg chapter we found an dication for the trd that large units (100,000 persons and more) sre bilaterally or patrileally rather than matrileally (Ch. 6, Diagram 1, Pred. P and ). Societies with domant pügh-agriculture likewise sre bilaterally or patrileally rather than matrileally (Ib. Pred. N and ). And moreover, such large (versus smaller) units < sre; »proportionally more oft domant pugh-agriculture (versus all other, more archaic, subsistce types, Ch. 6, Diagram 2, Pred. Ó). It is ïndisputablë that patrily versus matrily rrèlates relatively more csely with domant pugh-: agriculture (versus other) and with units of 100,000 persons or more (versus smaller units) (Pred. N and P). , Whether these thgs also apply to MBDm versus FZDm we have be unable to vestigate statistically. If we had managed to do so, we would have liked also to know what is the reason for the greater survival ability of MBDm versus FZDm. What we do know is that: a) MBDm (versus FZDm) is lked more csely with patrily (versus matrily); b) patrily, nnection with modernity or archaism of the mode of production, has greater survival ability than matrily (see above); and c) FZDm the case of patrily has less survival ability an absolute sse than MBDm has under any unileality whatever. What is stated under o is a fdg by HOMANS and SCHNEIDER ; the fdgs set forth b and c are the prest aüthor's. As for item c: sce we have replicated and mbed, it is n o t a theory derived from a sample. We have previously expressed this aspect as folws: whereas the case of matrily FZDm still attas approx. 50% (versus MBDm), this drops to approx. 5% under patrily. (For bilaterality the sample still shows only some MBDm and no FZDm any nger, but frequcies are toow to yield any significant result if a mparison is made with unileality: Pred. M', Ch. 5.) It appears from the foregog that the f i g u r e s available to us furnish strong dications for the tability of the theory that, as the mode of production bemes more modern, the survival ability of MBDm is fact greater than that of FZDm. This is se most clearly if we exame the results for S I + S II (ev after those elimations which we nsciously omitted the prest article) testg HOMANS' and SCHNEIDER'S special hypothesis. This result.was: 5/16 > 1/26; P r = 0.0232 with FEPT. It is clear without further calculation that likewise: 11/16 > 1/26 and 25/26 > 1/26. We found Ch. 1 that, ev without replication of HOMANS' and SCHNEIDER'S research, the faultess of their theoretical terpretation of the statistical result was obvious, as matrily shows no special affity with FZDm, but only sres FZDm relatively more oft than patrily does. Some authors have advanced argumts support of the claim that MBDm offers "bigger possibilities" than FZDm. LÉVI-STRAUSS, among others, feels that the case of FZDm the nnection betwe the desct groups supplyg each other with marriage partners would be too vulnerable, as two directly exchangg groups every two successive gerations are turn wife-givers, so that ·- on this pot -- none of the desct groups is able to acquire a position of social superiority over one of the others. With MBDm, however, one and the same desct group is always the wife-giver (or husband-giver) respect of one and the same other desct group the sequce. this way it is possible that this respect .there is social superiority of each time one group over each time one other the sequce. We note, with referce to FOX for example, that it has be found for a series of cases, with cultures areas at great distances from each other, that wife-givers are nsidered the social superiors of wife-takers. (For the tire subject see FOX, 1967, Ch. 8, esp. pp. 212-214.) this nnection LÉVI-STRAUSS' argumt about "vulnerability" does not seem nvcg and is rightly rejected by HOMANS and SCHNEIDER (1955, p. 13). It is somethg else that FZDm, at least on one pot, makes it more difficult to have higher versus wer social status and uld for this reason ane be lked relatively more csely with a wer level of production forces, i.e. a more archaic mode of production, as mpared with MBDm which is th lked more strongly with a relatively modern mode of production. As this kd of lk with the mode of production applies likewise to patrily versus matrily, this might volve a greater survival ability of MBDm versus FZDm. Meanwhile it is our opion that the theory can be deeped. For this purpose we go back to what we argued Ch. 4. We said there that matrily is presumably more oft nnected, proportionally, with gynecratic phoma, versus patrily, which is th nnected proportionally more oft with androcracy. Moreover, we aga stressed the phomon, well-known from ethnography, that androcracy mbation with matrily tds to assume the form of MB authority, whereas androcracy with patrily would rather td towards authority by the husband or father from the nuclear family. We feit we should also nnect this with the fact that, sce there may be prciple more than one brother and one sister each case, MB authority fitted better a situation where the (enomie) weight of the nuclear family is relatively light: MB authority easily lks several nuclear families so that depdt nuclear family production is less mpuisory. the evt of authority of the father or of the husband depdt production by various mutually lked nuclear families is not excluded, of urse, but the system would sooner alw nuclear families livg and producg relatively depdtly. This mplex of phoma and presumed processes should now be brought to nnection with C geral and with MBDm versus FZDm particular. We have already underled that it is not certa beforehand that it is always wom who are or were manipulated, nor that the manipulators are or were always m. A hypothesis advanced by LÉVI-STRAUSS et al. ncerng a primeval situation see to me to be without foundation, ev if it had not clashed with a fact such as wife-givg by wom among the Kandyu. (Cf. ter alia Ch. 1 of this article.) C is also nnected with an (origal) clation, poted out by FOX among others, to keep marriage with the family as it were, i.e. to marry or give marriage the csest permitted relative (at least outside one's own nuclear family, and the case of unileality outside one's own leage = desct group). If the narrowest basis of C is abandoned -- this narrowest basis is a form of bilateral C -- th « groups may be cluded the systematic supply of marriage partners either through FZDm or through MBDm. Now there are no (more) examples to be found -- as far as I know -- of archaic societies which they manipulate groo. (If there were, this would not affect my argumt, but we do not want to mplicate matters unnecessarily.) For the time beg we will start from the fact that brides are manipulated the known cultural anthropogical universe. As willappear prestly, we can the jirst stance leave leality out of acunt: what ncerns us is whether the child is nsidered a mas child or a womas child, our case the husband's daughter or the wife's daughter. It does not matter either whether the male or the female does the manipulatg. Aga: the basic question is whether the child is regarded as a womas child or as a mas child. Wh they manipulate a bride as the wije's child and the csest permitted relative the bride's geration is chos,or preferred as marriage partner, the bride will always go to her mother's brother's son. As a matter of fact, if the mother does the manipulatg, she will give the daughter marriage to 'her brother's son. Under asyetrie nnubium the latter is cser to such mother than the son of her husband's sister is. Her brother fact bgs to her own desct group, and her husband's sister does not. Her brother's childr n e v e r bg to her child''s desct group, no matter whether the reckong is patrileal or matrileal. Ego's (woman) brother's child is therefore always permitted as a marriage partner for her child. Wh the male does the manipulatg and the bride is treated as a wife's child (and not as a husband's child), th the husband -- whatever leality applies officially -- will possibly give away not his own daughter, but his sister's daughter as bride. The csest permitted relative the bride's geration is th the bride-giver's son (which son is treated as son of the bride-giver's wife, but this has no further bearg on the matter). Sister's daughter will th go as bride to own son. The rest of the reasong goes, mutatis mutandis, as the precedg paragraph. Please note that we are ncerned all the time with the csest permitted relative of the bride's mother, or of the brother of the bride's mother. Wh a woman marries her MBS, it means that the man marries his FZD. Wh the bride is manipulated as wife's child under the above-described nditions of marriage to the csest permitted relative -- whereby the spouses have to bg moreover to one and the same geration -- this means FZDm. If on the ntrary the 'bride is treated as father's child, this will lead under the same nditions just as evitably to MBDm. The father -- or possibly his sister, but th we are ncerned with her brother's daughter! -- gives the daughter to his sister's son and not to the son of his wife's brother. His sister's son is a cser relative to him. So such sister's son will marry his mother's brother's daughter: MBDm. And now we are gog to volve leality. dog so we have to revert briefly to the question that patrily is by its nature apanied by (presumably) proportionally more frequtly occurrg heavy enomie weight of the th more oft relatively depdtly producg nuclear family. Theoretically, it is c o n c e i v a b l e that, the case of patrily, woman -- this case as sister of the man -- would" have the higher social and political status and this may sometimes actually occur (perhaps among the Tchambuli).4 But the p r e s e n t - d a y state of affairs the ethnographic universe see to be at any rate that domant androcracy occurs, an absolute sse, appreciably more oft than gynecracy or legal equality of the sexes. Whatever the leality, one will nsequtly unter as a rule androcratic societies. This is notably the case, however, under patrily, which is apanied relatively more oft by a relatively modern mode of production (but not by a Socialist one). For that reason MB authority or F authority will be the rule, and FZ authority over F authority extremely rare. It should now be noted first of all that under maitrily -- no matter whether it is (still) apanied by gynecracy or (already) by androcracy -- childr will be treaited proportionally more oft as a womas childr (versus a mas childr) than is the case under patrily. We will for the time beg not call for statistical nfirmation. But on the other hand it is quite possible that under ma;trily the significance of the father is already bemg great, meang (acrdg Cf. Facts M. MEAD, 1935. to our theory which we have argued and statistically strgthed precedg chapters) that production is already relatively modern and the enomie weight of the nuclear family is already so great that it is producg depdtly, as we have called it. that case the man will be actg as father and he will no nger be actg as authoritative brother of his sister. the situation described two paragraphs before, the bride is treated under matrily as wife's child, so that FZDm will occur. the situation described the precedg paragraph the bride is treated as father's daughter, so that MBDm will be substituted. It is not amazg that the latter cases matrily will not vanish all at once: it is a frequt phomon that a superstructure will ntue to exist once the basis which created the superstructure has beoome extct, or ev if it clashes with such a superstructure. On the other hand, once there is patrily, the child will almost surely be treated as husband's child and not as wife's child -- apart from the cases, which are rare n o w a d a y s , wh gynecracy exists or arises iri one way or other with patrily, or the mother's brother has great fluce for one reason or other. As a result of all this it will hardly be possible for FZDm to occur under patrily. my opion this terpretation does fuil justice to HOMANS' and SCHNEIDER'S figures -- nfirmed by replication -- unlike the terpretation HOMANS and SCHNEIDER have attempted theelves. the two cases of FZDm under patrily which they mtion, it is a fact that not the father is the wife-giver, but that the mother (Kandyu) ór the mother's brother (Sherte) give away the bride (Cf. Ch. 1 of this article). Furthermore, their terpretation HOMANS and SCHNEIDER have wrongly departed from the groom and his nsanguities. They should have departed from the wife-giver and his or her nsanguities. Moreover, they have applied a theory about fridly or non-fridly relations which they have be unable to prove ethnographically (Ch. 1). And fally they have st sight of the fact that (nowadays) as a rule it is no nger groo but brides who are giv away, and that this -- nnection with the wife-giver as pot of departure and nnection with the effect of beg regarded "as wife's child" or "as husband's child" -- decides on MBDm versus FZDm. The nnection betwe all this and leality folws aga from the historical phomon of the frequt occurrce, an absolute sse, of androcracy both under matrily and patrily, the occurrce (already) of paternal authority under matrily, and the almost mplete absce of maternal or MB authority under patrily: under matrily the child is treated sometimes as wife's child and sometimes ais husband's child; under patrily virtually always as husband's child. 8. BRIEF SUARY AND NCLUSION. We have -- perhaps wrongly -- lumped together all desct syste which are neither sgle unileal nor doublé unileal, and called them "bilateral". Nonetheless, on the 'basis of the figure results mtioned this article, we may claim that bilaterality is statistically more csely lked with (other) sympto of relatively modern mode of production (versus relatively archaic) than unileality. This appears notably from the greater survival ability of bilaterality, mpared with that of unileality. The same is true for patrily versus matrily. With this framework we have feit able to give a better explanation of certa figure results found by HOMANS and SCHNEIDER (see Ch. 7 of this article). If we had be ncerned with physiogi^anatomical structures, we would have be permitted to nclude that matrileal syste are all circutances historically the oldest desct syste, further that all patrileal syste had origated from some matrileal fo'rm, and further that all bilaterality had aris out of patrileal structures. Now this nclusion may n o t be drawn any case. It would seem rewardg, however, to vestigate the folwg hypotheses (systematically usg material from myths and rites) both statistically and through ethnographic analysis of the dividual cases: I) Of the systematic desct syste which we can still tracé, matrileal ones will be (have be) nnected proportionally more oft with extractive-gatherg subsistce enomy and with "domant horticulture" (versus all other); 5 patrileal desct syste will be (have be) nnected relatively most oft with extractive huntg and/or fishg subsistce enomies and with other than "domantly horticultural" enomy without any dustry worth mtiong (versus all other); bilateral syste are nnected relatively most oft with the technogically most deveped extractive and technogically most deveped agricultural enomies and especially with dustry. the sse used by ABERLE. II) Another hypothesis which my view merits cser vestigation (on the same basis) is: the absolutely most ancit subsistce enomies which we are able to tracé (through myths and rites among other thgs) will be nnected proportionally most oft with matrily (versus patrihny and versus bilaterality). (That the absolutely youngest ones are nnected proportionally most oft with bilaterality, versus patrily and versus matrily, we know from Pred. B, Ch. 2. It folws that patrily would occupy an termediate position here.) III) A third hypothesis which I thk should be further vestigated this nnection is: where the origation of various desct syste a historical sequce can be traced or deduced with sufficit probability -- on acunt of material provided by myths and rites among other thgs -- bilaterality will possibly be proportionally most oft «historically younger (versus patrily and matrily, sofar as prest the sequce), furthermore patrily will be proportionally more oft historically younger than matrily, unless domant, technogically advanced huntg and/or fishg has be superseded by "domant horticulture". this way it uld be made likely (or unlikely, if the predictions are falsified) that, of the known desct syste sofar as traceable, matrily is as a rule the most archaic and/or historically most ancit, bilaterality as a rule relatively the most modern and/or a sequce as a rule the historically youngest, and that patrily respect of these thgs as a rule occupies an termediate position. BIBLIOGRAPHY ABERLE, D. F. 1962 Matrileal Desct Cross-cultviral Perspective. Matrileal Kship, ed. by D. M. Schneider & K. Gough. Berkeley and s Angeles. FOX, R. GOUGH, K. Kship and Marriage. Pgu Books. Desct Group Variation among Settled Cultivators. Matrileal Kship, ed. by D. M. Schneider & K. Gough. Berkeley and s Angeles. Marriage, Authority, and Fal Cause. Gle, 111. USA. HOMANS, G. C. a n d D. M. SCHNEIDER LEEUWE, J. DE 1962 On Former Gynecracy among African Pygmies. Acta Ethnogr. Ac. Scit. Hung. 1964 Male Right and Female Right among the Autochthons of Arnhem Land (I). Acta Ethnogr. Ac. Scit. Hung. 1965 Male Right and Female Right... etc. (II). Acta Ethn. Ac. Scit. Hung. 1966 twicklung der Bambuti-Gesellschaft. Anthropos. 1970 Society System and Sexual Life. Bijdr. Taal-, Land- Volkkunde. Replication Cross Cultural Research: Samplg Method. Due for publication. LÉVI-STRAUSS, C. MEAD, M. Les structures étémtaires de la parté. Paris. Sex and Temperamt Three Primitive Societies. New York. Ethnographic Atlas. Pittsburgh. troduction: The Distctive Features of Matrileal Desct Groups. Matrileal Kship, ed. by D. M. Schneider & K. Gough. Berkeley and s Angeles. Matrileal Kship. Berkeley and s Angeles. MURDOCK, G. P . SCHNEIDER, D. M. SCHNEIDER, D. M. and K. GOUGH (eds) 130 Appdix SAMPLE I EA = T N = = G. p. MURDOCK, Ethnographic Atlas, 1967, Univ. of Pittsburgh Pr. also R. B. TEXTOR'S sample: A Cross Cultural Suary, 1962, HRAF Press, New Hav. 302. 1 = M, N, O, P, Q, or S; 2 = E, F, or G. Additional formation verg article. 1 = N ; 2 = A, B, C, D, M, O, P, U, or V. Additional formation verg article. l. 14: l. 16: l. 20 and l. 22: if no data available: ; if bilateral: either not filled or OO; if duoleal: ,,, «^. K and i: see verg article. EA-lumns: 1 3 Eel Cc9 Ec7 Ej7 Sg5 Na9 Ic2 Se8 Ael Icll Ca7 Ehl Na24 Ei 14 Sj7 Hl Ne9 Call Af3 Nell lal Nc4 Sj3 Sf2 Ai3 Nj2 Cj4 Abor T Ahaggar Au T Akha T Alacaluf T Aleut Arese T Amahuaca Amba T Ambonese Amhara Andamanese T Angmagsalik Ao M L L K Qm So O O Cc P ^, L *+* Ai21 Adl Apaye T Aranda T Arapaho Arusi Ashanti T Assibo Atayal T Atsugewi T Aweikoma T Aymara T Azande T Aztec T Babynians Bagirmi Bajun T L S ,w 2 2 2n L L Sample I (nhnued) EA-lumns: 1 3 Agl Ae5 Ae51 Cal9 Agl6 Cdl Sc3 Aj8 Ea6 Ib4 Bambara T Bamileke T Ban Banna Banyun Barabra T Barama Carib T Bari T Basseri T Batak T Bellaola SI L L M L So O C/3 Cc Po C/3 Nb9 Ac3 Ag5 Cb7 Sil Cb8 Sa5 Cb5 Ih3 Ee2 Ai23 Sb2 Sbl Bemba T Birifor T Bolewa Bororo T Bororo Ful. Bribri T Buduma T Bunlap T Burusho T Bwaka Cagaba T Callago T Camayura T Campa Caraja T Caribou Eskimo Chakma Chama T Chchu T Cherokee T Chewa Chilt Chantec T Chippewa Chiricahua T Cho T Chukchee T cama niagui T Creek T Dard T Delaware T Cc Cp C M S So ** S L 2n 2n 2n ts) L O Cp Si5 Sf7 Cc Sjl Na21 Ei 10 Sh6 Egl SI O O Cc Cc Ng5 Ac Nd8 Njl s s C/3 2 2 2 2 2 Na36 Nhl Sa4 Ec3 Se Ag8 Ng3 Ee5 Ng6 L SI Sample I (ntued) EA-lumns: 1 3 AJ19 Nc6 Ag27 Ag3 Cj8 Cgl Cd2 Ae3 Didga Dieguo T Diula Dogon T Druze Dutch T Egyptians T Fang T Fipa Fon T Fox T Futajanke S S Po S SI 2n 2 2 2 2 2 1 n 2n Adl9 Afl Nf7 Ag6 S SI SI Ad7 Ad9 Ad24 Ce7 Nel Sc4 Si6 Ia5 Cb4 Ea3 Cj3 Ad8 Abl Ganda T Gisu T Gogo Greeks Gros Vtre T Guahibo T Guato T Hanunoo T Hasania T Hazara T Hebrews T Hehe T Herero T Hidatsa Hopi Huichol T Iban T Ibibio lbo Po Po Cc 2 2 2n Po S Nel 5 Nhl8 Ni3 Ibl *** S Cp K L SI M K K So S Pp Af20 Af Acl Ng Ed5 Ib2 Ila T Iroquois Japanese T Javanese T Kabyle T Kafa Kaibab Kamuku Kanuri Cd4 Ca30 Nd53 Ahl4 Cbl9 2n Sample I (nünued) EA-lumns: 1 3 20 ; Ps Po Iel Nel6 Ei7 Ef8 Na4 Ahl IeS Eg6 Ec8 Eb3 Ei8 Ci2 Ad4 Nc8 Ag Cal Ae2 Ac4 Ci3 Ca33 Cill Na20 Iel2 Kapauku T Karankawa Kar T Kashmiri Kaska T Katab T Keraki T Kerala T Ket T Khalka T Khasi T Khevsur T Kikuyu T Klamath Konkomba Konso T Kpe T Kuba T Kumyk T Kunama Kurd Kutch Kwoma Lakher T Lango T Lapps T Lau T Lca Ldu Lgua Lepcha T Lesu T Li M L M C SI SI SI «^ S So L Em Cc 2 2 2 n 2 2 2 1 1 2 2 2 ts) Ei4 Aj4 Cg4 So Ih4 Sal2 Ai29 Sh9 Ee3 Ig4 Ed9 Ih7 Ch9 Sc Ed2 Ab3 Ps SI So L 2 2 2 2 2 Adl4 Nc33 Acll If3 Lifu T Lithuanians no T zi T Luguru Luiso Luvale Majuro T Mak Cc C Ifl4 Sample I (ntued) EA-lumns: 1 3 Ej8 Ed3 Aill Ig9 Ai47 Ij2 Eg3 Malays T Manchu T, Mangbetu Manus T Mao S S P Cc Nh5 Ij3 Aj2 Shl Ah7 Aa5 Af5 Ib7 Nj7 Ej2 Nc23 Na32 Ihl Ie Ah31 Ail5 Sdl EJ13 Id2 Nal Aj7 Aa7 Maori T Maria Gond Maripa T Marquesans T Masai T Mata T Matakam T Mbuti T Mde T Mtaweians T Mixe Mnong Gar T Monachi Montagnais Mota T Motu Mumuye Mundang Mundurucu T Muong Murng T Nabesna T Nandi T Naron Nauruans Navaho T Neapolitans New gland T Ngere Ngombe Nkundo T Nootka Nuer T Nupe T Nyakyusa T Omaha T Ontong-Java T Osset s o s Cc SI S M S ~ Cc n 2 2 2 2 n 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Ifl3 Nh3 Ce5 Cfl Cc Ps K SI SI i i AfS6 Ae39 Ae4 Nbll Aj3 Af8 Ad6 Nf3 s s Ii5 Ci6 Sample (ntued) EA-lumns: 1 3 Ai 10 Af6 Otoro Oyo Yoruba T Paez T Pahari Palaung Palikur T Papago T Paraujano T Paressi Pawnee T Piaroa Plas Suk Pokomo Ponapeans T Poto Purari T Quiche Ramcamecra T Rega Rhade Riffians T Rossel Rotumatis T Rundi T Rwala T Sagada T Samoans T Santa Ana Santal T Sapo Selung T Semang T Sufo Serbs T Shantung Shilluk T Shiriana Siane Sidamo Sdhi T Skaietk Siuai T SI s s 02026 00118 11026 00046 00028 02305 32005 31600 22105 14005 24301 01063 01306 00316 00712 41212 00019 M 23104 02215 01018 01135 31303 00217 00136 11080 00037 00316 11026 01117 01216 11800 43300 20017 00046 00127 11125 34300 11017 01036 2n S£5 Ef7 Eil8 Sd3 Ni2 Sb5 Si7 Nf6 Sc8 AJ23 1 2 2 L O S Cc Cc Ad33 If5 Ae29 Ie8 s s s M 2 Sal3 Sj4 2 2 n 2 Ael7 Ej Cd3 SI Igll Ih6 Ae8 Cj2 Ia2 Iil S L 2n s Po L S SI SI L Cc 2 2 1 2 2 2 Nhl2 Efl Af49 Ej6 Ej3 Ag32 Chl Ed Ai6 Sd6 Iel7 Cal6 Eal s o p So Ndl5 Iel 2 -- 1 2 1 1 2 2 2 2 1ÓO Sample I (ntued) EA-lumns: 1 3 Cc3 Nal7 Ca2 Nd2 Ce6 Acl7 Ad22 Ic9 Ab2 Siwans T Slave Somali T Southern Ute Spaniards Suku Sukuma Sumbanese Swazi T So PI T cP c Cc 2 2 2 1 i 2 2 2 n 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Ag4 Eh3 Ic6 Sd2 Nj8 Cc2 Sg4 Eg Ndl Tallsi T Tanala T Tariimbarese T Tapirape T Taras Teda T Tehuelche T Telegu SI L Si K SI PI Nhll Ab4 Ah3 To T Tewa Thonga T Tiv T Tlgit Toba Towa T Toradja T Trobrianders T Trukese T Tsihian T Tswana Tubatulabal T Tunebo T Twana T Ukraians Ulawans T Vedda T Nb22 Sh8 Nb6 Ic5 Ig2 112 Pp Nb7 Abl3 Nc2 Sf4 Nb2 Ch7 Ig6 Eh4 Nd22 Nd65 Ie2 P O Qc 2n i 2 CP Sc5 Ie6 Nd6 Wadadokado Walapai Wantoat T Wapishana T Warop T Washo T S O SI o o c Cc N) 2 Sample I (ntimied) EA-lumns: 1 NfS Id6 25 Ncl4 Ndl8 Se6 Ie4 Cb2 Id9 Ah8 Sc7 Se4 Ac7 K6 Ni7 Ag2 Sa6 Ec6 Nc7 Ec4 Nb4 Cb26 Wichita T Wikmunkan T Wtu Wishram Witoto T Wogeo T Wof T Wongaibon Wute T Yabarana T Yagua T Yao T Yapese T Yaqui Yatga T Yucatec Maya T Yukaghir T Yuki T Yurak T Yurok T Zazzagawa M L Cc '7 14005 44200 33400 32500 22204 20215 00136 33400 PI 0 L ^ S L P 11116 O SI Cc Cp Tm Qc D. 13204 05104 01216 00415 21106 10027' 01207 15400 43300 03340 41500 138 Appdix SAMPLE II EA = T N = = G. p. MURDOCK, Ethnographic Atlas, 1967, Univ. of Pittsburgh Pr. also R. B. TEXTOR'S sample: A Cross Cultural Suary, 1962, HRAF Press, New Hav. 302. 1 = M, N, O, P, Q, or S; 2 = E, F, or G. Additional formation verg article. 1 = N ; 2 = A, B, C, D, M, O, P, U, or V. Additional formation verg article. l. 14: l. 16: l. 20 and l. 22: if no data available: ; if bilateral: either not filled or OO; if duoleal:«,«,. K and i: see verg article. EA-lumns: 1 3 Nc Nhl3 Ca6 IhS Cdl2 Nb AJ17 Cd6 Ej4 Ai44 Ne G10 Cc Igl3 Ae7 Si3 Nal3 Ae48 Eg9 Ea8 Ib3 Ie27 Ca32 Ahll Ag48 Ce4 Ag21 Ai7 Achomawi Ama Afar Ajie T Algerians Alkatcho Alur Anc. Egyptians Annamese T Anuak Ankara Armians Asb Aua Babwa T Bacairi T Baffland Bafia Baiga Bakhtiari Balese T Banaro Barea Basa Basari Basques T Bassari Baya T L So Ps So S S SI So L O PI O C C Cc 2 2 2 -- 2 2 2 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 2 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 2 2 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 s So S S SI Sample II (ntued) 1 Ic3 EA-lumns: 3 Adll Af7 Ef5 K12 Ca5 Sa7 Ag3O Sj5 Ag7 Cf4 Ch5 Ei3 Belu T Ba Bete T Bhil T. Bikians Bishar T Black Carib T Bobo Botocudo T Bozo T Brazilians T Bulgarians T Burmese T Caduveo T Camarato Cambodians T Cayapa T Cayua Chahar Chamorro Chech Chemehuevi Cheremis T Cherkess T Chibcha T Chichimec Ch Chook Chiriguano T Choiseulese Choroti T chiti T eur d'Ale nibo roa Cubeo T Cuna T Cupo Curipa Dillg T Diola Dobuans T Dorobo T L S L C/3 C/3 Cc C Po O L 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 _ 2 1 i 2n Sh4 Scll Ej5 Sf3 Sj Eb7 1 2 Iffi Ci7 Nd54 Ch4 SI C/3 G4 Sf6 SI M 1 2n Ni5 Eil9 Nbl9 Sh7 Igl2 Sh5 Nh7 Se9 Sj9 Se5 Sal Sc9 Ai8 Ndl4 p M P L C/3 Nc32 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Agl9 Aa2 14U Sample // (ntued) EA-lumns: 1 3 J. DE LEEÜWE Ael2 IbS Ij9 Na31 Afl9 Af32 Af36 Nb5 Ca31 Cf5 Cbl7 Af43 Eil Duala Dusun T Easter Isl. Eastern Cree Efik Egba Ewe SI 01225 01207 25300 01315 01018 01216 23500 00037 00127 L s S SI M Eyak T Falasha Fr. Canadians Fur Qm 2 1 2 i ,1 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 Af28 Cel Ecl Ad32 Sb6 Ga Garo T Gbari Gheg T Gilyak T Giriama Goajiro T Goldi . M S S P SI Ec9 Cdll Ah36 Ef9 Ca8 Af52 Ad29 Nbl Nb8 Nf8 Aa9 AJ26 Nd5 Ngl Ch2 Cg2 Ia3 Ic7 Sfl Na8 Ea9 Ca4 Cg3 Af25 Guanche Gude Gujarati Gurage Guro Hadimu Haida T Haisla Hasai T Hatsa Hill Suk Hukundika T Huron T Hutsul T Icelanders T Ifugao T Ili-Mandiri ca T galik T Iranians Iraqw T Irish T Isoko L P P L _ · ·2 Cp 2n n 2n Sample II (ntued) EA-lumns: 3 C/3 Ca29 Janjero Se3 Jivaro T Ah2 Jukun T Ai36 Jur Ei5 Kach T Ahl9 Kadara Nh20 Kamia Cb9 Kanawa Cbl8 Kanembu Ii7 Kapgamarangi Id5 . Kariera T Agl3 Kasa Nc27 Kawaiisu Kazak T Ebl Kei Ic8 Nh23 Keweyipaya Nc34 Kiliwa Nel7 Kiowa Iel3 Kiwai Ai46 Koma Acl4 Kongo Ad44 Konjo Edl Koreans T Ai38 Korongo Koryak T Ec5 Ae41 Kota Ib8 Kubu Kung T Aal Ig3 Kurtatchi T Kusaians Ifll Nd7 Kutai T Ae22 Kutshu Iel6 Kutubu Sa Ig7 Acl3 Nc24 Ac33 Ejl Cj7 Abl6 Nh24 Agll Lacandon Lakalai T Lake Tonga Lake Yokuts Lala Lamet T Lebanese Lge Lipanbi Cc SI K Cc Ps C/3 C/3 L SI C/3 SI SI SI S P L P SI M S C/3 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 C/3 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 _ 2 2 2 2 n 2 2 Cc M SI Cp 14Z Sample II (ntimied) EA-lumns: ·1 3 nguda Luba T Ae6 Ai32 Lugbara Ac28 Luimbe Nbl5 Liii Macassarese T Iel Cal3 Macha Madan Cj Mailu Ie21 Sa8 Mam T Manam Ie29 Ne6 Mandan T . Mapuche T Sg2 Mardanim Iel9 Ai9 Masa Sd5 Maue Ai 14 Mbum Ab5 Mbundu T Miami T N£4 Ed4 Miao T Na41 Miac Mimica Ie30 Mangkabau T Ib6 Ed8 Mchia T Ed6 M Chese T Ag31 Mianka Miskito T Sa9 Modoc Nc9 Mogh Ei9 Ea7 Moghol Ajl6 Mondari Ag47 Mossi Muju Ie23 Cc4 Mzab T Aa3 Si4 Ng7 Nama T Nambicuara T Natchez T Ndoko Ngarawapum Ngonde Nibarese T Niueans Nsaw Nunamiut Ah30 Sl: L S SI So L L L L SI S L ^. S So SI Ps SI L O S So S L S 0 L SI 0 Cc M Cc Cc Cc Cc 16 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 C Cc Ae38 Ie26 Adl6 Eh5 Ii9 Ae56 Nal2 Sample II (ntued) EA-lumns: 1 3 Ea5 Ad20 Ab7 Ec Ed7 Sg3 Ii7 Ef6 Ifl Nuri T Nyamwezi Nyaneka T Ob Ostyak Okawans T Ona T, Onotoa Oraon T Palauans T Panare Pathan T Patw Pekangekum Picuris Pima Plateau Tonga Pondo Popoi Popoluca T Quileute Safwa \ Sakalava \ Sandawe T \ Sanema \ Santa Cruz \ V Santee Sara Saramacea T Sarsi T Sekani Sema Siang T Soi Serer Seri T Shambala Sherbro Sherte T Sherpa Shluh T Siamese Shalese T 20 S S S So 2 1 2, 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 1 2 2 2 n 2 2 Po Scl3 Ea2 Ps O Cc M C Nc22 Na34 Nh9 Ni6 Ac30 Ab Ai28 Nj3 Nbl8 S L 1 2 2 2 2 Adl7 Eh8 L L Ps L S S 2n Aa6 Sd8 Ih9 Ne20 Ai22 Sc6 Ne7 Na28 Eil6 Ih2 EJ14 Ag22 Ni4 C 2 "2 2 2n S L M S L O Ad Afl4 Sj2 P K O Ee6 Cd5 Ej9 Eh6 2 2 2 2 2 Sample II (nhnued) EA-lumns: 1 3 Sel Nall Ad46 Cb3 Ac25 Aell Ab8 Ial2 Aj20 Ag26 Ia7 Ncl9 'Siriono T Sivokakmeit Soga Songhai T Songo Songola Sotho T Southern Porno Sugbuhanon O L L S So Te Qc Suri Susu Tagbanua T Tahltan Tao Tamil T Tannese Tarahumara T Tasmanians s SI SI Cc S 2 2 Na27 Sb8 Eg2 -- Cc Ih Nil Id8 L S -- Cc -- Ial3 Sj6 Cb6 Sh2 Nd Ee4 Ii2 Ng8 Id3 Nj9 Ic Eg4 AJ24 Nj4 Si2 Cal7 Se2 Cb23 Sj8 Ci5 Nb31 Tawi-Tawi Tetehara T Tera T Tera T Thompson^ Tibetans T Tikopia T Timucua T Tiwi T Tlaxcalans Tdberese Toda T Topotha Totonac T Trumai T Tsamai Tucuna T Tukur Tupamba T Turks Tututni L S SI P 2 Cc s o s M s o O Cc 11116 21304 01036 11404 00145 22204 00145 32500 1 -- C O Cc n omitted umerations ncerng desct. omitted most umerations. Sample II (ntued) EA-lumns: 1 3 Nd58 K9 Ndl9 Si8 Ig Ih8 Ad41 Scl Utah Ulithians Umatilla Umotha Usiai Vanua Levu Vugusu Warrau T W. Apache Wnebago T Wiyot Wodaabe Yahgan T Yako T Yakut T Yami Yaruro T Yuchi Yupa Zapotec Zaga S +** ~* Nhl7 Nf2 Nb36 Cb24 Sgl Ps So *** Af4 Ec2 Ial4 Sc2 Cp Cc Cc P O O So D. Ngll Sb7 Nj Cc20 s o 1 1 1 -- 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 2n 2n
Journal
Bijdragen tot de Land-, Taal- en Volkenkunde – Brill
Published: Jan 1, 1971