GROUP MARRIAGE AND RELATIONSHIP. 09] 



or rather "the father or the mother of a person who is eligible 

 for marriag-e with nie." So also do Nos. 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 

 and 24 address Nos. 1 , 2, 3, and 7, 8, 9. 



Hence we see that in these two sets of tribal brothers and 

 sisters we have two distinct intermarrying groups, neither of 

 which can marry within its OAvn bounds. In other words, 

 the gi'oups are exogamous, and they have connubium one 

 with the other. 



It nmst, however, be distinctly understood that, as I said 

 before, there are resti'ictions which prevent marriage between 

 persons too near in blood. Thus, Avhere 1, 2, and 3 are 

 own sisters to 4, 5, and 6, there can be no intermarrying^ 

 between their children, because, as the natives say, they are 

 "too near;" but when those males and females are only 

 tribal brothers and sistei's, sufficiently flxr removed from the 

 direct line, tlie marriage rite may accrue. The Fijians, for 

 instance, say " They are ve.ilatkiid (brothers and sisters) it is 

 true, but their fraternity is far away." 



Mr. J. F. M'Lennan, whose theory was opposed to Mr. 

 Morgan's discovery, accounted for the classificatory system 

 by denying that its terms have anything- to do with relation- 

 ship, and asserting that it is only " a system of addresses." 

 No one but a theorist, determined to stick to his theory, per 

 fas ant ncfas, could have hit u])on such an explanation, and 

 yet it has been adopted by several anthi'opologists. Setting- 

 aside the absurdity, which lies on the very face of it, in the 

 supposition that savage and barbaric tribes in all parts of the 

 world took the ti'ouble to invent so elaborate a system merely 

 for the purpose of addressing* one anothei" by its terms, and 

 that independently one of another they all managed to in vent 

 the same system, the following- considerations are quite 

 enoug-h to refute Mr. M'Lennan's explanation : — 



1. If the classificatory terms have nothing- to do with 

 relationship, then the tribes who use them have no terms of 

 relationship at all, for they have none other. 



2. There are tribes — the Tongans for instance — who have 

 the classificatory system, but who do not use its terms in 

 addressing one another. 



3. The terms carry with them all the rights and all the 

 duties which are usually connected with them. Thus there 

 are " tribal brothers and sisters," who are not related at all 

 according- to our own system, and yet intercourse between 

 them would be looked upon with al^horrence and ]ninished 

 by death. Can any reasonable man believe that this would 



