[57, 1955] 70 American Anthropologist ment based on a scheme of the discreteness of several categories of exchange able items, hierarchically arranged, has created several difficulties and incon sistencies. It is considered admirable to invest one's wealth in wives and ch~l in Malayo-Polynesian Social Organization' dren-the least expendable form of wealth traditionally known to Tiv, and WARD H. GOODENOUGH that form· most productive of further wealth. University of Pennsylvania. But Tiv have come upon a simple paradox: today it is easy to sell sub sistence goods for money to buy prestige articles and women, therebyaggrand ESPITE the wide differences in the social systems which now exist izing oneself at a rapid rate. The food so sold is exported, decreasing the amount among Malayo-Polynesian societies, Murdock (1948; 1949:228-31, 349 of subsistence goods available for consumption. On the other'hand, the num .pffers convincing evidence that they are derived from an originalllHawai ber of women is limited. The result is that bride wealth gets higher-the price ~'typeof structure. The features characterizing this type include bilocal
of women becomes inflated. Under these conditions, as Tiv attempt to become .,:~t!t::c:l}amilies,bilateral kin
71 72 eral sense
kindred scent,
in sense fathers
at to descent either suggest connections types Polynesian Murdock's Notes lateral group nal
therefore, descendants, descent overlap may some he which bers' eligible groups. carries certain If after through ship in sort choice and associated.
one common
all.
As
residence has
As the Logically,
and
Malaya-Polynesian
that analogous sometimes in call
a
genealogically
is of and
sex. of defined defined
marriage The we
another.
only
known group
or father's kindred
group;
his "should of a that
land from cannot, but
in
A
to
group:
the
men
an
shall descent
faced
Murdock mothers."
Queries
The
residence second
membership,
source
inherit genealogy sense
society. as
the
These are
one
is
"unrestricted the descendants
rights
whether a
which by
and
true
in ancestors.
distinct
see, as
bilocal,
common difference
children As to
or
with has traced
continue in
therefore, be
through of
kindred Noles
Notes
Murdock as
group
possibility sibs sometimes of
are
.descent mother's
they
N nonunilinear
these
both
several
limited
as
continuity Hereinafter,
attributes
Rivers
or
an oies
between
the Here, confusion
back
simple through
their and
and laterally
then from
by
and
are group.
element is of ancestor,
for
problem cases The
and rights,
women. in
is
to of American
function existing adoption, to Queries
lineages, descent possible
groups,
and a to
to
and
that share each group traced Queries the the
the
people reside
ways is
through second Queries
kindred include
the
a
the
males consanguineal
kindreds
through has
to to
Rivers
line descent latter
group
Murdock
then
original
in
in I
individual
of
may Still
of
include
a
founding
localities
as of optional
shall
members
group," lineally
i.e.,
in
ways clearly the
as
the ascertaining
who but Anthropologist
common
of (1929:55),
type the or
from
maintaining a
defines
only
women. the
refers
sense
the
a nonunilinear be another of define descent
females.
kindred
groups
groups
not social time
reserve
to
land-owning
original
ancestor.
have
of
persons restricts of
line
only
had one locality
the
been
early
to
depending for
restricting will
ancestor unilinear
with two
must
of to
it,
relative,
it, and
connections
A
a
of
organization
family, children a
in one will in
may those it
device people
on a
of
Such
belOlig it
its the common the third basic
relative inheritance.
Malaya-Polynesian
descent
kindred restricted includes
which
which who mind all
be
membership
Rivers is
The
associated sex the
go
probable
descent
take
feature
not term
is descendants its added
in
groups
group.
way
types.
while
sometimes
is
on whether are who
acknowledge
membership
other
of
likely unilinear to
and
structure.
all
members
a they
many
to
in
by
and
the ancestor. is
are
those as
added kindred
all true
to
the
descent have group.
make of
to common.
in any
shall common
The must And form
many
which
If hand, restrict
individual's of to
with traced
Murdock are
early the forms. the
to members
descent
through
both
members
the
go nonunilinear
as principle,
first
an
through
it
include
who refer
in
membership are Such of
respectively'
kindred
kindred
for
of
groups the sometimes new
I [57, in
a the is
their
founder's
the
necessity ancestor
Malayo
sexes society. member;.
through
wish to
We type them
member related In
in
descent acquire the
to group
groups group.
their term 1955 these
mem origi
both
trace
this
this
only
are, de
men
who
own,);
the
bi
of
are we
by
to in of
as
a
'
r9,UpS
,:',111
":nded ,-",,3,
'was
c'4.fu
"
rnpletely
"As
~4passes
,.~,ommunity ~'
is ;Jis :'{it -4.,
;6us ,:~y.formalized
ltS :~st '·~inheritance. Let d 2.
L IJ.Some (to
~thout sisters
his 'mbered. DENOUGH] o
a i,enated , readily the
'T'share Innection
ent
e ,ns, organization,
their group
which yo-Polynesian shares
as
do
now The to The The The The
associated
n already
can predominantly a
of either
lines us
process ctionally that
a kainga
from
community
the
which so person
candidate
his
turn brothers, Comes death,
bwoti,
tum go
kainga, utuu,
mweenga,
functions 00,
should to so. came function
from of
on
land. daughters going
The descended
kinsmen
a with now
it 3
only
his
them indicated,
are
to
may meeting common
to an to
continues,
formerly
who
a
from a organization.
with between
heing
through the
Gilbertese Children.
the
nonunilinear Membership
the feuding, or true present a
their all community
The to
to
unrestricted
Malaya-Polynesian
in
they
societies may
be
nonunilinear
or
as
a dies only 00 in
Gilbert those of
their land the bwoli. patrilocal, our
who,
household. receive
subsequently
held bilateral
land-holding
atoll.
from
bulk
without
the
houses
children, interest
ancestor,
may
not the
functioned
without
his :five
in
search
eldest. shareholders
a
Each
ownership. father
and
of
past?
like
by
00
relation
tract
of 00
have the mother
Islands It for
get
his Every types
meeting-house
the
illustrates descent
in
in both
it
functions
some
lasts kindred. descent him, the
for
daughter for
but
original
the
and
mother's Division descent
more some regardless the
children is
the
acquired Formerly
of
entire
consent this
original of
in units. divided
sexes.
accomplished to :first. member cannot
matrilocal
for are
land
00 some presence
economic
Gilbert
We
Social
group
kin
connection
die land
property.
of
is discussion.
group
as
inheritance. descended
Owner.
2
how
only group
who
must,
not the
revert is Here kin What When without group. among
from
a
long
of revert
Malayo-Polynesian
from whether
it
r,tmong
based
Organization share
divided of organization.
Islands,
an
its
terminated land
who in
marries was
of including
activities.
the marriages
we
based their
therefore, All
as evidence
for a relation unrestricted
members,
her
with
such
by
to the
on
of
heirs. man
are
an must
community
from
allotted the
the
of
through
distribution
kinsmen
mother.
and this than their land Since
On
as sons
extended
receives"a
her his
some
nonunilinear
genealogical
sons,
(or
distinguish
Since
all the
in
parental land,
to
by subdivided The kept
do
rights,
enter descendants from
00 heirs.
WOmen
the woman)
may
Samoa,4 among
land,
aspects
the
settlement original
men we
If
mates with
descent on
land
00,
has it
but several
social
their
their
family
this
have If
his persons small
functioning be among
from
or
individual
residence.
the
a
the there also
are
may
brothers
with formally dies, of
father's
ties delayed
slightly women.
type have mother
descent
owner. father.
forms.
within
among
group
bwoti,
right prop hold
share being
eligi form
unit.
pass
in
not are the
are
re
his de
of
73
a
a 74 American Anthropologist [57, 1955 GOODENOUGH] Malayo-Polynesian Social Organization 75 to sit in one or more of the traditional seating places under the eaves around a kainga. Residence was commonly patrilocal but matrilocal residence was con the meeting house. Each seating place is named and together with the people sidered proper under some circumstances, as when a man's share of kainga who occupy it constitutes a bwoti. Bwoti membership is based on individual lands was small while his wife's was large. While residence did not affect one's rights 'in certain plots of land. All persons who own a share in such a plot, if own kainga membership, it did affect that of one's children. It appears to have no more than one square foot, have the right to a corresponding seat. Since all been the rule that if a person's parents resided patrilocally he belonged to his persons holding a share in the same plot are theoretically lineal descendants of father's kainga, but if they resided matrilocally he belonged to his mother's. its original holder and thus members of the same 00, all persons entitled to the Since residence was predominantly patrilocal, most Gilbertese belonged to their same seat in the meeting house are ipso facto consanguineally related and so father's kainga. Succession to leadership in the Iminga, moreover, could de recognized. But not all members of the same 00 with respect to such a plot scend only in the male line. Neither of these facts, however, made the kainga have actually inherited shares in iti they hold lands acquired from other an a true patrilineal lineage, for if membership were patrilineal then the children cestors. Not holcling a share, they are barred from the associated seat, but "of men who went in matrilocal residence would still have belonged to their must sit elsewhere as their present holdings permit. While all bwoti mates father's kainga. Patrilineal succession to its leadership was guaranteed by belong to the same 00, only a segment of the 00 belongs to the same bwoti. having the eligible successor reside patrilocally, so that his son would in turn From his various ancestors a man may acquire shares in several plots, each be a member and eligible to succeed him. We seem to have in the kainga, entitling him to a different seat. He is potentially a member of several bwoti then, a kin group resembling a lineage, but whose membership is determined at once, but can activate membership in only one. His children are not bound by parental residence rather than parental sex. This membership principle by his choice, however, and he, himself, may change his affiliation, either is, of course, tailor-made for societies practicing bilocal residence. because he has quarreled with his mates, or because he wishes to help keep up Normally, each member of the kainga had a plot in the tract of land associ the numerical strength or to assume the leadership of a bwoti in which he has ated with it. If this tract had a corresponding bwoti in the meeting house, all the right of active membership. A man entitled to sit in two places may so di the kainga's members would be eligible to sit there. The plots of those members vide his land holdings that one son acquires the right to sit in one bwoti while of the kainga who moved away after marriage, however, went to their children, another son acquires the right to sit in the other. There are instances where belonged to other kainga. These children thus became eligible to member brothers belong to different bwori. Everyone has the right of membership in at in a bwoti· other than that to which most of their kainga mates belonged. least one; people divide their land holdings among their heirs in such a way as By this process members of the same kainga could and did belong to different to insure this. Women pass on these rights to their children in the same way and, conversely, members of the same bwoti belonged to different
that men do. We have seen, however, that unless they have no brothers they aamgaJ even though both types of group were founded by the same ancestors. traditionally receive smaller allotments of land, and then only at marriage. While each kainga tends to be associated with a specific bwoti, their respective As a result men belong more often to their father's than to their mother's personnel are not congruent. bwoti. It is understandable that this kin group should have been erroneously To sum up, all three descent groups are somehow connected with land. An labeled Upatrilineal" by such outstanding reporters of Gilbertese custom as ancestor having established ownership of a tract was the founder of all three. Grimble (1933:19-20) and the Maudes (1931:232). In the light of existing All of his descendants form an 00. Those in actual possession of a share in the concepts, this was the best label they could use.s The bwoti, then, is a common ,land are eligible to membership in a bwoti. Those whose parents resided on it descent group whose membership is restricted, not by reckoning descent form a kainga. None of these groups is unilinear. exclusively through one sex, but to those descendants of the common ancestor 'p' Because of its intimate connection with bilocal residence, we niustlook upon
whose share of the original inheritance includes a portion of a particular plot of ,~;;thekainga, like the 00, as quite possibly an original Malayo-Polynesian'form land. ~fkin group. The bwoti, too, despite its special function in relation to meeting Kainga appear originally to have had the same membership as bwoti, :house organization, commands our interest on structural grounds. What indi for in some instances their names coincide, and they often have the same found cations are there of the presence of groups like the 00, bwoti, and kainga among ing ancestors. In time, however, they diverged, for the principles governing .'other Malayo-Polynesian peoples? Let us turn to the 00 and bwoti first. their membership differ. Like the bwoti, each kainga was a descent group associ Barton's account of the Ifugao indicates clearly, that an unrestricted de ated with a tract of land. Its founding ancestor, also, was the original holder 'scent group of the 00 type OCCurs there. In describing the !fugao "family," of the tract. Theoretically, the original ancestor established residence on his as he calls it, he leaves no doubt about the presence of bilateral kindreds land. Those of his descendants who continued to reside there formed together ,(1919: 15). When he talks of family-owned land, however, he is clearly talking with their spouses an extended family, or mweenga. Together with those who ,abont sometbing else (pp. 39-41). He indicates that some holdings have been were born and raised there, but had moved away after marriage, they formed : associated with a particular family for generations. Tbey may descend tbrough 76 American Anthropologist [57, 1955 GOODENOUGH] M alayo-Polynesian Social Organization 77 daughters as well as sons (pp. 50--55). When a person dies without children his Islands. We can only conclude that in addition to the unrestricted descent property reverts for division not to his kindred as a unit but to the nearest of group there was a restricted group comprising persons who actually possessed his kin who like him are descended from a former owner. Indeed, as far as the shares in the ancestral land, resembling in this respect the Gilbertese bwoti. reversion of land to collateral heirs is concerned, Ifugao law is almost identical In his account of Uvea, Burrows (1937:62-68) likewise uses the term kin with Gilbertese law. Members of this land-holding family, moreover, have a dred to refer to two nonunilinear descent groups. One appears to be unre voice in its alienation even though they possess no shares in the land. Clearly, stricted like the 00, its members having rights in ancestral land regardless of when Barton talks about the family as a land-holding unit, he is talking about where they or their parents reside, though if membership is confined to those an unrestricted descent group like the 00. The Ifugao are one of the societies descendants who actually possess shares as distinct from the right to possess considered by Murdock (1949:349) to preserve the original Malayo-Polynesian them it corresponds to the Gilbertese bwoti. Which is the case is not clear. Hawaiian type of organization unchanged. If he is right, we must accept the A segment of this group is localized as a bilocal extended family. This more 00 as one of its characteristic features. restricted group is analogous to the Gilbertese kainga. In fact, the Uveans Ulawa in the Solomon Islands is another society which exemplifies Mur use the name kainga for it, as well as for the larger group. dock's (1949:349) original Hawaiian type of social structure. As reported by Burrows (1936:65-78) develops the same picture on Futuna, where the Ivens (1927:45-46, 60--61), the Ulawans live in hamlets whose members con kutunga is either an unrestricted group like the 00 or a restricted group like sider themselves kinsmen. Patrilocal residence prevails, but Ivens notes that the bwoti. Here the term kainga is reserved for that portion of it which is local commoners marrying into a chief's family may live matrilocally. In addition ized on kutunga land. Since residence is bilocal, membership in the kainga to extended families there is a kindred, called komu. Now, Ivens says that gar must be based on parental residence, as in the Gilbert Islands. Burrows calls den grounds and coconut trees belong to the komu, and adds that daughters the kutunga a kindred and cites Notes and Queries as his authority for doing as well as sons may acquire rights in them and retain these rights after moving so. Futunan society is another of those which Murdock (1949:349) regards away in marriage. We have already noted that a kindred cannot be a land as typifying original Malayo-Polynesian forms of organization. owning group. As such, the komu can scarcely be a true kindred. I conclude The demonstrable presence of unrestricted descent groups associated with that the term komu must refer in fact to two kinds of kin group-one a kindred, land in Ifugao and Gilbertese society, and their probable presence in Uvea, the other a nonunilinear descent group associated with land rights. While the Futuna, and Ulawa means that either they developed independently in Indo published evidence gives no direct clue as to how membership in the latter nesia, Micronesia, Polynesia, and Melanesia, or they were a part of original group is determined, it is enough to restrict the probabilities. I infer that it is Malayo-Polynesian social structure. Of these five societies, three are repre an unrestricted descent group like the 00 or'is restricted either on the basis of sented in Murdock's survey. That each of them should be considered by him, land shares like the bwoti or on the basis of parental residence like the kaingl!, for other reasons, to preserve the original social structure unchanged is not for Ivens is emphatic about the absence of unilinear groups. without significance in this regard. When we turn to Polynesia we find abundant evidence of nonunilinear Given the presence of unrestricted descent groups, it is evident that groups descent groups. All authorities stress the importance of lineal descent, whether structurally similar to the bwoti readily tend to develop. All that is required is a through men 'or women, in connection with social rank and land rights. distinction between those who as descendants have rights to acquire a share Some authorities use the term kindred in the Notes and Queries sense for these of ancestral land and those among them who actually have received such nonunilinear groups. shares. If the latter are organized as a separate social group for any reason, Macgregor's account (1937 :54) of Tokelau, for example, describes a kindred they necessarily constitute a restricted descent group in which membership as aU persons descended from a common ancestor, whether through men or follows the bwoti principle. The conditions for its presence, therefore, may well women, indicating that it is an unrestricted descent group of the 00 type. He have obtained in early Malayo-Polynesian society. The distributional evidence, adds that "the land that was given to the heads of families [in the original however, is too limited to warrant any conclusion in this regard. settlement] became the common property of the kindreds descended from In the foregoing survey of possible examples of the 00 type of group, we them. Each member of the kindred received the right to use a section of the have noted the simultaneous presence of the kainga type on Uvea and Futuna, land." Children thus acquired claims to a share of land in both their father's where, too, it is called a kainga. This suggests that there may be linguistic and mother's groups. Macgregor states that normally only one of these claims as well as other evidence for considering the kainga type of group an early was activated, sometimes on the mother's side and sometimes on the father's. Malaya-Polynesian form. But he does not give the criteria for this choice. It could not have been paren The term kainga, together with its variant kainanga, has a wide distribution tal residence for residence was regularly matrilocal, while leadership in the Micronesia and Polynesia. This distribution cannot be attributed to bor group descended patrilineally in the primogeniture line as in the Gilbert because its various forms show the proper historical sound shifts as [57, 1955 GOODENOUGH] M alayo-Polynesian Social Organization 79 78 A mer-ican Anthropologist loan..,words do not. "\ihile the meaning of the term is not always clear, it in mechanism whereby descent through a woman is legalized. The daughter who variably has to do with land and/or some kind of social group. In Mangareva, will carryon the line stays with her family of orientation, her husband moves for example, kainga refers to a section of land (Buck 1938). It means a kinsman in and the bride-price is waived. In short, the children take their lineage affilia in Lau and Tonga (Hocart 1929), and a nonunilinear kin group together with tion in accordance with the residence of their parents. Looked at this way, In its land in Futuna, Uvea, and the Gilbert Islands, while an ill-defined family donesian kin groups, where these matrilocal marriages are practiced, are basi cally like Gilbertese kainga so-called clans of Islands. group is called 'aiga in Samoa. The variant form occurs as 'a1~nanain Hawaii, the and the the Lau where it refers to a local population of some kind. The cognates kainanga and Historically, it would appear that a shift toward patrilocal residence made hailang or jejinag refer to patrilineal and matrilineal sibs, respectively, in affiliation with the father's group so common that kin groups came to be Tikopia (Firtb 1946) and tbe Central Caroline Islands (Lessa 1950; Good viewed as properly patrilineaL Jural recognition of patrilineal descent then enough 1951). Clearly there was some kind of descent group associated with required a legal device for reconciling it with the less frequent but traditional land in the- society from which both Polynesian and Micronesian peoples are practice of matrilineal affiliation under matrilocal residence. This was accom jointly descended. But how in the course of history could this ancestral de- plished simply by adoption of the husband. Adoptive marriage, then, points to , scent group come to be nonunilinear in some places and unilinear in others? the former existence in Some Indonesian societies of nonunilinear descent And where it is unilinear, how could it become patrilineal here and matrilineal groups of the kainga type. there? If we start with the assumption that this group was originally, as in the From Melanesia I have no clear example of kin groups corresponding. to Gilbert Islands, one in which continuity of membership derived from parental . the kainga. There is a possibility, however, that they occur in Ulawa, as has residence where the residence rule was bilocal, then the answer becomes clear. already been noted. Rivers' account (1926b: 71-94) of Eddystone Island shows In those societies shifting to regular patrilocal residence, the group automati bilocal residence. His one reference to gardening rights (p. 93) indicates that cally became patrilineal. Where matrilocal residence became the rule, as in a woman retains a share of her parent's land if she and her husband live matri the Carolines, the group became equally automatically matrilineal. And in locally, her children presumably inheriting from her, but she loses these rights each case no one need even be aware that a change had in fact occurred. Where if' she lives patrilocally for then her children presumably inherit from their bilocal residence continued or tendencies to unilocality did not go too far, the father. If the same principle applies to men, rights in land are based on paren kin group remained nonunilinear. If this is so, where else in addition to Uvea, tal residence. If those having such rights in the same section of land are organ Futuna, and the Gilbert Islands do we encounter nonunilinear descent groups ized as a group, it is very likely of the kainga type. Melanesian possibilities aside, however, the demonstrable antiquity of the based on parental residence? The so-called patrilineal clans of the Lau Islands are definitely kin groups kainga for Polynesia and Micronesia, when taken together with the indications in which membership is based on parental residence. The accounts by both ,of its former presence in Indonesia, warrants the inference that this form of Tbompson (1940:54) and Hocart (1929:17) make this clear. Hocart, for exam (:group was present in early Malaya-Polynesian society. Murdock's (1949:152, ple, says: "Usually a man 'follows' his father's clan, but many men live with 228, 349) reconstruction of bilocal residence, without which the kainga is im the mother's people, even though both clans may be in the same village, next possible, makes this inference even more plausible. to one another. If a man lives with his wife's people, the children follow the If we accept the proposition that descent groups like the 00 and kainga mother's clan." The importance of parental residence for hapu membership were both represented in original Malayo-Polynesian society, how can it help among tbe Maori has been noted by Firth (1929: 99-100). For predominantly us to understand the processes by which some -of the complex social systems patrilocal Tongareva we bave the suggestive statement by Buck (1932:40) :;~mongpresent Malaya-Polynesian peoples emerged? By way of introduction that "through matrilocal residence the children drop active connection with to answering this question, I wish to call attention to the peculiar form of their father's kin and become incorporated and naturally absorbed into their the nonunilinear descent group in the community of Bwaidoga in the D'Entre':' mother's family and the organization to which it belongs." I suspect a similar '¢asteaux Islands, where I had the opportunity to collect some information in situation in Tokelan (Macgregor 1937) and Manua (Mead 1930). Certainly 1951.' it would be compatible with the meager facts reported there. Bwaidoga consists of several hamlets, kali:'lJa, strung along the coast. For patrilineal Tubuai, Aitken (1930:36) reports that in the absence of 'Each hamlet is associated with one or two kin groups called unuma, which are sons descent was carried through a daughter for one generation. This practice 19calized there in extended families. Several related unuma form a larger non., bears an obvious resemblance to ambil anak, or adoptive marriage, as reported Jocalized kin group, called ga: bu. Most men inherit a share of their father's for some Indonesian societies, where a patrilineal line may be continued for :Vmuma lands and reside patrilocally after marriage. Under these conditions a one generation through a daughter instead of through a son (Ter Hilar '"itl.an belongs to his father's unuma and ga:bu. He may, however, choose to 1948:175-76; Murdock 1949:21, 45). Here matrilocal residence is the social :J:'El:sidewith his mother's unuma, receiving a share of its land from his-ma:ternal 80 American Anthropologist [57, 1955 GOODENOUGH} M titayo-Polynesian Social Organization 81 grandfather or maternal uncle. By doing this he loses rights in his father's to its immediate land resources. With bilocal residence, as the size of one land, unless he returns permanently to his father's unuma immediately follow kainga decreases in relation to that of other kainga, more of its members ing his father's death. If he remains with his mother's unuma, he forfeits these remain at home after marriage; as its population increases, more move away. rights for himself and his heirs in perpetuity. By choosing to affiliate with his How do these functional considerations help us to understand the develop mother's unuma, a man automatically becomes a member of her ga:bu as ment of other social forms? In those societies where conditions came to favor neolocal residence, the well.' The Bwaidogan unuma and ga: bu differ from the kainga in that residence kainga could not possibly survive. If the same factors promoted individual is never matrilocal. The choice is between patrilocal and avunculocal residence. ownership of land, the 00 would also have been weakened, leaving only the Men can acquire land from the unuma of either parent, and their choice of bilateral kindred-as among the Kalingas of Luzon (Barton 1949), who now residence depends on where they can get the best land. As a result of this have a social structure corresponding to Murdock's "Eskimo" type. system, membership in unuma and go.:bu is traced sometimes through female In areas where there was an abundance of land, and slash-and-burn agri culture made the use of any plot a temporary matter, doing away with the need and sometimes through male ancestors. The avunculocal alternative to patrilocal residence suggests that the for permanent tenure, bilocal residence was no longer functionally advanta Bwaidogan ga:bu and unuma were formerly matrilineal, and that the unuma geous. Unilocal residence rules could and did develop, and the kainga type of used to be localized as an avunculocal extended family. With a shift in favor of group became unilinear as a result. The large islands of Melanesia provided patrilocal residence, membership in the unuma became optionally patrilineal. .';,conditions of this sort, which accounts, I believe, for the high incidence of The present system may be seen, then, as transitional from a matrilineal to ,unilinear forms of organization there. a patrilineal form of organization. As such, it cannot be viewed as indicative Tendencies toward unilocal residence and unilinear descent developed of early Malayo-Polynesian forms. I mention Bwaidoga, however, not only to elsewhere also, as in the Caroline Islands and parts of Indonesia. These illustrate another kind of nonunilinear descent group, but to help point up a 'r tendendes called for reliance on other devices for redistributing land. In the problem which I believe has played a major determining role in the history of ;'Carolines this was accomplished by separating use rights from membership Malayo-Polynesian social organization: the problem of land distribution. in the owning group. Where formerly parental residence had been the basis for In any community where cultivatable land is not over-abundant in rela rriembersWp in the owning group, it now became one of several bases for trans tion to population, and all rights to land depend on membership in strictly mitting use rights outside the owning group. I have shown elsewhere how the unilinear kin groups, a serious problem must soon arise. Unilinear groupS in ,more complicated tenure system which resulted served to keep land use evitably fluctuate considerably in size. The matrilineal lineages on Truk, for equitably distributed on matrilineal Truk (Goodenough 1951:44,166-71). example, readily double or halve their membership in the space of one or two Adoption of the land-poor by kinsmen in land-rich groups is another device generations. As a result, one lineage may have twice as much land as its mem Jor solving the land distribution problem. It is not mutually exclusive with bers need while another has not enough to go around. Unless devices are other devices, and its wide practice is familiar to all students of Malayo-Poly developed to redistribute land rights to persons outside the owning group, nesian societies. It is of special importance where the land-owning groups have 'become unilinear. We have already mentioned its wedding with the parental intracommunity conflict is inevitable. As noted at the beginning of this discussion, Malayo-Polynesian societies ,residence principle in Indonesia in connection with adoptive marriage there. charaeteristicallyvest land ownership in kin groups. Throughout their history, Jts elaborations on Palau in conjunction with financial sponsorship are so therefore, they have had to meet the problem of land distribution in the face ';'complex as to obscure almost beyond recognition the underlying matrilineal of constant fluctuations in kin-group size. One of the simplest possible devices stem (Barnett 1949). for achieving this end is to keep the land-owning groupS nonunilinear. With the The Bwaidogans provide an interesting example of a people whose land 00 type of group a person has membership in as many 00 as there are distinct ,hw-ning kin groups became matrilineal, but, under the stress of land distribu land-owning ancestors of whom he is a lineal descendant. While he can expect :'#,on problems, could not remain so. They had to become nonunilinear again. little from those 00 which have become numerically large, he can expect a :With matrilineal descent and avunculocal residence as the immediate ante lot of land from those which have few surviving members. The overlapping .-edents of this return shift, however, the result was the peculiar type of group memberships inevitable with unrestricted descent groups make them an excel :~lreadydescribed, not the original kainga. Pressures of the kind at work in lent vehicle for keeping land holdings equitably distributed throughout the ;Bwaidoga may well lie behind the series of shifts which culminated in double escent in Yap (Schneider 1953:216-17) and the bilineal groups of the New community. As a restricted descent group without overlapping personnel, the kainga ebrides (Layard 1942). is also admirably suited for keeping group membership balanced in relation I conclude, then, that in addition to the characteristics reconstructed by 82
Murdock
group membership stressed
simultaneous helped or terms lineal adoption, optional systems unusual
tion, sanguineal
of an
of descent "fence."
origin,
several.hundred
atolls. from ance
sylvania. of
correspond from tically. (1920:66-67) ology association .
AlTKEN,
BARNETT.
kin the matrilocal,
ecological
Goodenough
1
2
a
4
G December
6
TThe
This provided
8 Field I
a
The
There the In group
National
or
The On
associated with for'mwaneaba as
am
group
group resolve
1949 1930
It
November
matrilineal now R. ones fact kin
,Samoan
bases Onotoa,
Groups,"
paper already not for
ga:bu work
H. was reasons
adjustments
to
with
bUocal as remains study
T.
of
which
in
that as
the
by certain
G.
well.
1952.
ties
presence early present
Palauan Ethnology Research as only
Island native these
was
years
land
patrilineal; seems nonunilinear is
the
of
the
umtma.
of
however,
patrilocal
we given fono
residence
1951, a
presented
Answers
I
with
reconstructed
conducted the
customs in
the through group
Reverend
had
that revised
other
ago.
Malaya-Polynesian formed elders
groups find distribution
to
sibs
the
and
society.
possibility, Gilbertese
I in
by Council
Their correspond
already
of
of
00
spent
land.
in
last
they
parts
and
Murdock in and
Tubuai. residence to
is the GHbertese affiliation was
and
are bilateral
and
descent
at
a
American
the
in
the
last-minute Mr.
tended characterization Bwaidoga.
two both
part
two
University information the
are the
attributed
and
lineages. bilateral isolated
the
expanded determined One
correct
atoll
of
land
William of
days days
REFERENCES annual not.
representatives
Bishop to was
summer
groups
problems. the by
and
(1949:
course, Indonesia
parents
the
mwaneaba Onotoa,
kindreds
was
automatically
at sponsored
of led
but
Geography tenure native
Murdock.
consequent
NOTES
kindreds,
Anthropologist queries
totemic
to of meeting
Bwaidoga,
Coates
Museum field
152, version of presented Where
of
had
that
an
to Samoan
California
society,
the
of under
1951,
by
term
work
158)
equally,
the thought
suggested
these unrestricted Where (meeting system,
the
sort
group of and
and
by
of of
CITED
for parental of
Bulletin
Branch this
patrilineal the
for when
s for the
at
here.
bwoti
invaders such the
the that
complicated
herein
one
groups
The
example,
Micronesia,
Generation-Hawaiian which
Publicati9DS.
there
this Wailagi
the described
auspices to
to
occurred,
Museum American
residence
I
I
The entitled
a house)
that
are
these
be or
be
of
was
group.
70. association learned
group described. structure
as
time,
residence.
unnamed.
arriving the
patrilineal
affiliation
field a were
transformed
Honolulu. it
Mission, apply patrilineal a
of
descent
subsequent
referred
member probably by
of Office
groups
Literally,
in
"The
due Anthropological the
work
it
greater
the
Jenness and became one
two
as
with
referred
in
Pacific
to
of
of predominated of
I
University
Typology
of on well
the
the
hainlet to
Generation
of
was
Because
apparently
group,
Naval
types varied
have which
equal
both favored
some the the
a
generous
Gilbert
and
reliance Science
into
able team
to
as
patrilocal [57,
return
word
unrestricted
presumably
a
some
force kinship Ballantyne
the Gilbertese Research.
to
groups
of
to Associa
of common
of patri while
making
social
1955
Islands they
means
termin Board such survey follows
obtain
assist
kin
Con statis Penn~
the
type
to
on
to
its
THOMPSON,
SCHNEIDER, RIVERS,
N MAUDE, MACGREGOR, LESSA,
MURDOCK, MEAD, LAYARD, JENNESS,
IVENS, HOCART,
GRIMBLE,
GOODENOUGH, BURROWS, FIRTH,
BUCK, BARTON,
GOODENOUGH]
oies
liAAR,
and
1940 1953
1948 19200 1926b 1929 1949 1930
1948 1931 1937
1950 1942 1920
1927 1929
1933 MARGARET 1951 1946 1929 W. 1936 1937 1932 PETER. W. 1938 1949 1919
RAYMOND
W.
H.
JOHN
A.
Queries
D.
R.
C.
A.
G. G.
LAURA E. B.
H. D.
C.
M.
F. AND
M. GORDON
P.
Southern Adat Yap Psychology Social 5th Social
Social G. Anthropology_ Adoption Ethnology
(Se,. The The Stone Melanesians Lau
AND The pology Property, Primitive M. We, Ethnology R. W. Ethnology Ethnology The Ethnology Ifugao
15,
G.
A.
ed. H.
No.
ethnology
kinship northern
H. Islands,
migrations the
2)
law Kalingas.
BALLANTYNE organization.
structure. organization men
46.
London. 2,
law.
E.
1.
Tikopia.
Lau,
in .
in
No.1
M
economics kin,
New
of
of
of and of of of
Indonesia.
terminology
the
of University alayo-Polynesian
Fiji.
Tokelau
Malekula. D'Entrecasteaux.
in Uvea. Futuna. :Mangareva Tongareva.
Fiji.
of
and
University
the :9-16.
Haven.
ethnology. of
New
Gilbert
Micronesia.
Ulithi.
New
Bishop
a
of
Bishop southeast
community
New
pandanus
Bishop
of
York.
Manua.
Islands.
Bishop New
York.
the
of
Islands.
University London.
York.
and
..
Museum
Bishop
of
Bishop
Museum London.
California
New
York.
Museum
Transactions
Chicago.
kin Solomon
Bishop Museum
people.
Bishop
on
Oxford.
Journal
Zealand
groups.
Museum
Social Museum
Truk.
Bulletin
of
Bulletin
Bulletin Publications
Museum
California
Polynesian
Museum
Islands.
Bulletin
of Yale
Maori. American
of
Organization
Bulletin
Bulletin
62.
the
the 162.
145.
University
Bulletin London.
Honolulu.
Polynesian
Bulletin
138.
at
New
New
Honolulu
Society
in
Honolulu.
Los
92.
Anthropologist
157.
Honolulu.
Archaeology
York
York.
Honolulu. Angeles
76.
146.
Honolulu.
Publications
Memoir
.
Society
Honolulu.
Academy
Honolulu.
(mimeographed).
12.
and
55:215-36.
40:225-35.
of
in
Ethnology
Sciences
Anthro
83