THE PRINCIPLES OF CLANSHIP IN HUMAN SOCIETY

Paul Kirchhoff

If one were asked t o s i n g l e o u t one outstanding s o c i a l phenomenon which

dominates the e a r l y evolution of human s o c i e t y t h e answer would undoubtedly
have t o be t h a t t h i s phenomenon i s the clan. Proof f o r t h i g a s s e r t i o n w i l l
hardly be necessary. The decisive r o l e of t h e clan i n early human h i s t o r y
manifests i t s e l f i n a s t r i k i n g manner i n t h e fact "tat i t s disappearance as
t h e dominating form of social organization marks t h e end o f a whole histori-
cal phase, and the beginning of another, i.e., t h a t dominated by s o c i a l
classes and t h e i r struggles.
It would, of course, be i n c o r r e c t t o say t h a t the h i s t o r y of human soc-
i e t y begins only with t h e emergence of t h e clan. A very important chapter
precedes t h i s event. But while the beginning of t h i s chapter of the evolution
of human s o c i e t y i s s t i l l characterized by t h e comparative shapelessness of
a l l s o c i a l forms, i n i t s l a t e r p a r t t h e subsequent emergence of t h e c l a n c a s t s
its shadows ahead as it were: here t h e main theme, and consequently t h e main
problem confronting the student, a r e t h e various f a c t s and forms leading t o -
wards theeanergence of t h e clan.

One of the outstanding t a s k s before the s t u d e n t o f early human society

i s , therefore, t h e study of t h e various forms the clan has taken i n the
course of i t s devlopment, o f t h e f a c t o r s which brought t h e c l a n i n its vari-
ous forms i n t o existence, and o f t h e f a c t o r s which led t o i t s replacement,
as the dominating form of s o c i a l organization, by o t h e r forms.
The study of t h i s complex of problems has dominated t h e f i r s t decades
of anthropological research. Within t h e l a s t two decades ( e d i t o r i a l note:
t h i s paper was w r i t t e n about 20 years ago) however, it has almost completely
receded i n t o the background as a r e s u l t of t h e p r e s e n t a n t i - e v o l u t i o n i s t
t r e n d of anthropology. ,
The early e v o l u t i o n i s t school i n anthropology, w i t h Morgan as its most
g i f t e d spokesman, f e l l i n t o an e r r o r f o r which anthropology subsequently
had t o pay a heavy f i n e , i.e., t h e f i n e of experiencing the growth of a n t i -
e v o l u t i o n i s t tendencies the unchecked growth of which today t h r e a t e n s anthro-
pology with ever-increasing s t e r i l i t y . This e r r o r c o n s i s t e d i n replacing
t h e concept of p u l t i l i n e a l evolution, as a p p l i e d by leading students to both
cept of sineal
-
n a t u r a l h i s t o r y and the l a t e r phases of t h e h i s t o r y of s o c i e t y , by t h e con-
evolution, as f p ~as ' e a g l $ - s o c i ~ t y' i s c b ~ c e ~ n e d .The
a p p l i c a t i o n of t h i s mistaken concept l e d t o t h e d i s t o r t i o n of many facts,--
and it may be s a i d t h a t anthropology s i n c e Morgan has t o a very l a r g e e x t e n t
l i v e d on these d i s t o r t i o n s . It h a s become t h e fashionable p u r s u i t of many
a w r i t e r t o demonstrate t h a t t h e u n i l i n e a l evolutionism of IÂ¥Iorga and o t h e r s
operate with d i s t o r t e d o r m i s i n t e r p r e t e d f a c t s , and that-- therefore--the
f a c t s unearthed by anthropology, both before, and even more s o s i n c e piorgan,
prove t h e i n a p p l i c a b i l i t y of the concept of evolution t o p r i m i t i v e s o c i e t y ,
--and t h e r e f o r e t o s o c i e t y generally. A l l t h a t has to be done, on t h e con-
t r a r y , i n order t o demonstrate i t s a p p l i c a b i l i t y i s t o r e p l a c e t h e u n i l i n e a l
concept of Morgan by t h e m u l t i l i n e a l concept a s applied i n o t h e r sciences.

h e of t h e tasks, therefore, which confronts us i n studying t h e evolution

of t h e c l a n and i t s r o l e i n t h e h i s t o r y of s o c i e t y is t o i n q u i r e which d i f -
- --
f e r e n t forms o f t h e c l a n a r e found t o e x i s t , and what t h e i r mutual gene t i c
r e l a t i o n is. "The p r e s e n t paper i s i n the main confined t o t h i s task.

I1
The most p r i m i t i v e s t a g e of s o c i e t a l development known snows r e l a t i v e l y
small c o m n i t i e s with a food-gathering economy. The coironunities, s e v e r a l
o f which are now united by bonds of common speech, customs and b e l i e f s i n t o
what usually i s c a l l e d a t r i b e , apparently everywhere c o n s i s t of a nucleus
of near r e l a t i v e s ( r e l a t i v e s b o t h by blood and marriage) ,--
t o which nucleus
a r e frequently a t t a c h e d more d i s t a n t r e l a t i v e s and unrelated i n d i v i d u a l s who
f o r one reason o r another have l e f t t h e i r o r i g i n a l community. Everywhere,
howel-er, the d e c i s i v e element i s t h e group of r e l a t i v e s , by blood and by
marriage. Very f r e q u e n t l y t h e community c o n s i s t s only of thi-s group; a
married couple and t h e i r unmarried and some of t h e i r married children,--
usually the married sons only, o r t h e married daughters only, t o g e t h e r w i t h
t h e i r husbands and wives and unmarried children.

T h i s group, and t h e whole community, i f l a r g e r than t h e kernel of r e l a -

fives, i s by no means a permanent u n i t . Ever again it s p l i t s up i n t o small-
er u n i t s of s i m i l a r composition, a t the death of the leading member of t h e
community; because of f r i c t i o n between members of the group, e.g. between
b r o t h e r s o r s i s t e r s ; o r simply as t h e r e s u l t of the i m p o s s i b i l i t y o f t h e
existence of a group above a certain s i z e i n one l o c a l i t y a t t h i s s t a g e of
economy and o r g a n i z a t i o n . Marriage of a member o f t h e comwnity f r e q u e n t l y
l e a d s t o h i s s e t t l i n g a p a r t . This l a y s the foundation f o r a new community
which i n the course of time w i l l go through t h e same process as t h e o r i g i n a l
one.
No bond beyond t h a t o f sentiment t i e s t h e members of t h i s community t o
t h e one i n which they were born. What matters i s where people l i v e a t a
- - --
given moment: i n o t h e r words, t h e concept of descent i s s t i l l completely
-
absent. .
Relatives by "blood and r e l a t i v e s by marriage a r e here, a s t o t h e i r
place i n the community, on a f a r more equal footing than a t any subsequent
s t a g e of s o c i e t a l development.

The t i e s and o b l i g a t i o n s of kinship c u t , of course, across s e v e r a l such

communities, where t h e r e i s i n t e r m a r r i a g e 'between several of them. But
these t i e s and o b l i g a t i o n s do not themselves c o n s t i t u t e communities. They
 t h e r e f o r e , not e n t e r i n t o our problem d i r e c t l y .

It is, on t h e other hand, only t h e s e t i e s of k i n s h i p which apparently

everywhere a t t h i s s t a g e r e g u l a t e marriage. I f we confine t h e term "exogamy"
t o t h e r u l e t h a t marriage must b e o u t s i d e of a group l a r g e r than t h a t com-
posed of r e l a t i v e s i n the f i r s t degree, and i f we mean by a "groupu a con-
s t a n t body of people whose e x t e n t i s t h e same f o r any of i t s members, t h e n
t h e r e i s no such thing a s exogamy t o be found a t t h i s s t a g e . Society h e r e
can s t i l l do without t h e concept of descent and consequently w i t h o u t t h e r u l e
of exogamy.,

The conditions described here a r e found mainly amongst mere food-gather-

e r s and hunters, and may be s a i d t o be t y p i c a l f o r them.

I n c e r t a i n cases, however, as e.g. i n many t r i b e s i n t h e Amazon area

of South America, where the t i l l i n g o f the s o i l has a l r e a d y r e p l a c e d the mere
hunting and c o l l e c t i n g of food, and where t h e communities are considerably
l a r g e r than, l e t us say, those of t h e Shoshoni o r Apache, the concept o f
descent i s nevertheless s t i l l unknown. Such cases undoubtedly p r e s e n t ex-
ceptions t o t h e r u l e t h a t mere food-gathering and hunting go t o g e t h e r w i t h
t h e absence of groups based on t h e concept of descent. Lowie i n a r e c e n t
a r t i c l e (193b: 145) has quoted these South American cases a s proof f o r his.
contention t h a t t h e r e i s " l i t t l e evidence o f complex laws of sequence". It
would seem, however, t o be very unsafe t o base such a f a r - r e a c h i n g contention
on what so obviously a r e exceptional, cases. S i m i l a r l y f u t i l e i t would be
t o a r r i v e a t general conclusions from t h e reverse c a s e s of e.g., many
Australians, o r the t r i b e s of t h e North American Northwest Coast, where we
f i n d more advanced forms of kinship o r g a n i z a t i o n combined w i t h lower forms
of economy. These instances have t o be explaine'd on t h e i n d i v i d u a l m e r i t s
of t h e case, and c l e a r l y be understood as exceptions, due t o e x c e p t i o n a l
h i s t o r i c a l circumstances which i n most cases we probably s h a l l be a b l e t o
demonstrate.

I n the overwhelming majority of cases higher forms of economic a c t i v i t y

a r e found together with higher forms of kinship o r g a n i z a t i o n .

- The increasingly cooperative c h a r a c t e r & economic a c t i y i t y requires

--
forms of k i n s h i organization which a s s u r e g r e a- tw stability coopw-
sting p o 5 d i c h i n primitive s o c i e t y predokinantlY a r e groups of m l a t i v c s } .
--
Greater s t a b i l i t y o f the cooperating groups of r e l a t i v e s r e q u i r e s some p r i n -
c i l e which more c l e a r l y ' s e t s o f f one such E u p from t h e o t h e r , s d which
&--
--
a t t h e same time Bssures t h e i r c o n t i n u i t x i n time.
4 - - -

-
The ~ r i n c i p l eof clanship, based on t h e concept of descent, does both. --
I n other words, $ h e h y p o t h e s i s advanced here i s t h a t the h i s t o r i c a l f u n c t i o n
of the c l a n i s t o assure s t a b l e and continuous cooperation. It t a k e s a
number of d i f f e r e n t forms, but i t s essence appears t o be t h e same everywhere:
t o group together i n one permanent u n i t a l l those persons, l i v i n g and dead,
who can claim common descent. This group i s commonly c a l l e d a c l a n o r s i b .
Its invention, i f we may c a l l i t t h a t , i s one of t h e g r e a t e s t achievements
of e a r l y man. It provided the form of s o c i a l o r g a n i z a t i o n under which the
t h e f o r c e s of production could grow, slowly b u t s t e a d i l y , t o t h e comparative
height a t t a i n e d e.g. b y t h e mountain t r i b e s of Luzon, with t h e i r magnificent
t e r r a c e d f i e l d s and i r r i g a t i o n works, o r , higher s t i l l , by Homeric s o c i e t y .

I n t h i s r e s p e c t , however, and i n t h e complexity and p e r f e c t i o n a t t a i n -

ed'by the developing forms of k i n s h i p organization themselves, t h e r e a r e
important, even s t r i k i n g d i f f e r e n c e s between some of the main forms which
the p r i n c i p l e of c l a n s h i p took concretely. To a n t i c i p a t e one of t h e main
r e s u l t s of our survey: some of these forms seem t o l e a d comparatively e a r l y
t o a s t a g e of s t a g n a t i o n , o r i n t o a b l i n d a l l e y , i f we may say so, while
o t h e r s seem t o possess f a r g r e a t e r p o s s i b i l i t i e s of development.

A t t h e p r e s e n t s t a g e of t h e i n v e s t i g a t i o n of t h e problem I conceive of
these various forms o f clans n o t as of consecutive stages, so t h a t one could
be explained a s developing o u t of the other, b u t r a t h e r a s stemming from
t h e same r o o t , i . e . f r o m t h e more amorphous type of kinship o r g a n i z a t i o n
o u t l i n e d before. Mhe-ther they a c t u a l l y grew o u t of t h i s common r o o t %
same time i s q u i t e another question. I n f a c t i t would seem t h a t they, o r
a t e a s t s o m e of them, r a t h e r r e p r e s e n t successive branches off t h e same
tree. I n other words, while none can be explained out of t h e o t h e r s , s t i l l
some appear t o be more archaic, o t h e r s more r e c e n t . This concept, of course,
thus f a r but a working hypothesis, and may have t o remain t h u s f o r a good
time, u n t i l a complete survey has been made of t h e known forms of k i n s h i p
organization and the o t h e r c u l t u r a l forms accompanying them i n every s p e c i f i c
case. The d e t a i l e d evidence on which these p r o v i s i o n a l conclusions a r e
based can u n f o r t u n a t e l y n o t be given here f o r reasons of space.

Out of t h e s e v e r a l forms of c l a n s which have t o be d i s t i n g u i s h e d I

shall h e r e omit some, e s p e c i a l l y t h a t found i n most Australian t r i b e s , and
s i n g l e out f o r d i s c u s s i o n two only. It appears t h a t the overwhelming m a j o r i t y
of t r i b e s whose s o c i a l u n i t s a r e known t o be based on descent, belong t o
one o r the other of t h e s e two types.

The f i r s t of t h e s e two types i s t h a t of u n i l a t e r a l exogamous c l a n s-,

e i t h e r of the p a t r i l i n e a l o r m a t r i l i n e a l v a r i e t y . Since these two v a r i e t i e s
'

are a l i k e i n a n o t h e r p o i n t s except t h a t one is m a t r i l i n e a l , the o t h e r

p a t r i l i n e a l , no a t t e n t i o n needs t o be p a i d here t o t h i s difference, s i n c e
-
our main aim is t o shew what d i s t i n g u i s h e s both of them from the o t h e r type
of c l a n which is n e i t h e r u n i l a t e r a l . nor exogamous.

The formative f e a t u r e s of t h e f i r s t ty-ie of clan, i n both of i t s v a r i e t i e s ,

are ( 1 ) t h e c l a n c o n s i s t s of people who a r e r e l a t e d t o each other e i t h e r
through women o n l y o r through men only,-- according t o the custom of t h e
tribe; ( 2 ) every member of t h e c l a n i s , as f a r a s c l a n membership goes, on
an absolutely equal f o o t i n g w i t h t h e r e s t : t h e nearness of r e l a t i o n t o each
o t h e r o r t o some a n c e s t o r b e i n g of no consequence f o r a person's place i n
the clan; ( 3 ) members o f t h e c l a n may not marry each other.
I n o t h e r words, t h e p r i n c i p l e s underlying t h i s type of clan a r e : uni-
l a t e r a l , e q u a l i t a r i a n t 1 , exogamous. They c o n s t i t u t e one i n d i v i s i b l e whole.
It i s no a c c i d e n t t h a t p r a c t i c a l l y everywhere we f i n d one of them we f i n d
t h e other two. Neither of them would, i n f a c t , by i t s e l f , produce t h e same
result.

These three p r i n c i p l e s of clanship, o r r a t h e r t h i s t h r e e f o l d p r i n c i p l e ,

l e a d s t o sharply defined, c l e a r l y separate u n i t s , comparable t o so many
blocks o u t of which s o c i e t y i s b u i l t . There have t o be always a t l e a s t two
such blocks, -two clans l i v i n g i n communion. Usually t h e r e a r c more t h a n
two.

The most s t r i k i n g aspect of t h i s t h r e e f o l d p r i n c i p l e of clanship is

i t s extreme r i g i d i t y . It i s hard t o imagine i n which d i r e c t i o n t h i s t y p e of
clan could develop f u r t h e r . The c l a s s i c a l form i n which we know it from
hundreds of t r i b e s seams t o exhaust a l l i t s p o s s i b i l i t i e s , and no forms lead-
i n g beyond i t seem t o have been reported from anywhere, - u n l e s s t h e Aus-
t r a l i a n systems should f a l l i n t o t h i s category.

This type of c l a n makes possible a kind of economic and g e n e r a l c u l t u r a l

cooperation which i n i t s way seems p e r f e c t . But, as t h e term p e r f e c t i m -
p l i e s , it seems t o be the highest type of cooperation which can be achieved
-
along t h i s l i n e of development. The growing f o r c e s of production a t a e m -
t a i n s t a g e demand important readjustments i n t h e form of k i n s h i p organization
of which t h i s type appears t o b e incapable. I t s a b s o l u t e e q u a l i t a r i a n s i m ,
combined with the complote subordination of each of i t s members t o the i n -
t e r e s t s of t h e clan a s a whole, while making p o s s i b l e a c e r t a i n type of
primitive cooperation, o b s t r u c t s very e f f e c t i v e l y t h e e v o l u t i o n of those
higher forms of cooperation which a r e based upon economic and s o c i a l d i f f e r -
e n t i a t i o n . Where therefore within t h i s type of c l a n h i g h e r forms o f econ- '
omy have come i n t o existence, as e.g. those based on animal breeding, t h e
development of which requires higher forms of cooperation, t h e r e t h i s new
economy has usually not gone beyond r a t h e r meagre beginnings. It i s , on the
other hand, s i g n i f i c a n t t h a t t h e forms of i r r i g a t e d a g r i c u l t u r e found amongst
so-called primitive t r i b e s appear t o be in. t h e main confined t o t r i b e s with
thessecond type of clan, the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of which we w i l l describe pre-
sently.

The f i r s t type of clan, t h e u n i l a t e r a l , e q u a l i t a r i a n , exogamous clan,

i s i n t h e main t y p i c a l of t r i b e s with migratory a g r i c u l t u r e o r w i t h primitive
forms of animal breeding, it i s probably no a c c i d e n t t h a t i t i s found above
a l l i n those p a r t s of the worlds-where c u l t u r a l development seems t o have
reached a point of stagnation, except where s u b j e c t t o f o r e i g n s t i m u l i , --
i . e . i n the western hemisphere, i n l a r g e p a r t s o f Negro A f r i c a , i n Melanesia
and New Guinea.

The form o f kinship organization which t h e unila-beral-exogamous p r i n -

c i p l e of clanship c r e a t e s appears d e f i n i t e l y a s a blind, a l l e y , and more
than t h a t : a t a c e r t a i n stage of economic and g e n e r a l c u l t u r a l e v o l u t i o n a s
an obstacle t o f u r t h e r development. What c o n s t i t u t e s i t s g r e a t n e s s a t t h e
same time c o n s t i t u t e s i t s limits.

We a r e presented with a s t r i k i n g l y d i f f e r e n t p i c t u r e t h e moment w e t u r n

t o tho second type of clan, found amongst the e a r l y Indo-European and
Semitic -bribes, amongst the Polynesians and Indonesians, including t h e
inhabitants of t h e Philippines, and a few t r i b e s I n o t h e r p a r t s of t h e
world. A t whatever s t a g e of development we f i n d these t r i b e s , we d i s -
cover i n t h e i r economic and s o c i a l l i f e f a c t o r s making f o r f u r t h e r evol-
ution, everywhere i n t h e d i r e c t i o n of f u r t h e r economic and s o c i a l d i f f e r -
entiation.

What then i s the type of c l a n found among these t r i b e s ? The answer

t o t h i s question i s not a simple one, a t airy r a t e not i f a simple desig-
nation l i k e ~unilateral~,~exQ.gamous~, e t c . i s expected. I n f a c t t h e very
names "clann, "sib", "gensu, e t c . , while taken from t h e vocabulary of
t r i b e s having t h e second type of clan, have been f o r such a long time and
so exclusively used f o r clans of the f i r s t , i. e. t h e unilateral-exogamous
type, t h a t it is very d i f f i c u l t indeed t o break down t h e confusion which
anthropologists themselves have created. This confusion c o n s i s t s i n t h e
b e l i e f t h a t the unilateral-exogamous c l a n i s the c l a n , and t h a t everything
else, including the clan of t h e Gaels, t h e of t h e Germans, and t h e
Gens of the Romans, i s a d e v i a t i o n from, o r a t any r a t e a s p e c i a l develop-
ment of t h e type of c l a n found among t h e Iroquois o r i n the Trobriand Isl-
ands. If there i s one question i n which t h e r e i s f u l l continuity from
Morgan t o our own day, then it i s t h i s misconception.

Very few indeed a r e t h e anthropologists who have t r i e d t o understand

the clans e.g. of the Polynesians a s a type i n i t s e l f , a s opposed t o t h a t
e.g. of t h e Melanesians. And t h e r e i s hardly any modern anthropologist
who has t r i e d t o re-evaluate t h e p r i n c i p l e s underlying t h e clans and s i b s
and gentes of t h e e a r l y Indo-European t r i b e s . In f a c t it has somehow
become a h a b i t t o shun t r i b e s which have t h i s type of clan, both i n l i b -
r a r y research and i n f i e l d work. They do not f i t i n t o the accustomed
pattern. Yet it i s p r e c i s e l y t h e s t u d y of these t r i b e s which w i l l allow
us t o bridge t h e s t i l l - e x i s t i n g gulf between the f a c t s of anthropology
and those of e a r l y European h i s t o r y . These t r i b e s a r e closer t o our own ,
p a s t than any others, and i f anthropology aims a t being a "usefuln science
i n the sense t h a t i t s researches and f i n d i n g s f i t i n t o a l a r g e r body of
s c i e n t i f i c knowledge, then w e must undoubtedly pay more a t t e n t i o n t o
t r i b e s the study of which promises t o g i v e us the key t o the e a r l i e s t
w r i t t e n h i s t o r y of t h e Jews, t h e Greeks, t h e Romans, the Germans, etc.
Thus f a r anthropology has completely f a i l e d i n t h i s t a s k which Morgan
regarded as one of t h e main t a s k s of our science. I n f a c t t h e r e a r e
probably very few anthropologists today who would agree t h a t t h i s i s -
one of t h e main t a s k s of anthropology.

The decisive d i f f e r e n c e between t h e f i r s t and t h e second type of

clan is t h a t what matters i n t h e one i s r e l a t i o n s h i p through e i t h e r
men o r women (according t o t h e custom of t h e t r i b e ) , i r r e s p e c t i v e of
the nearness of such r e l a t i o n s h i p t o t h e other members of the group
t o some ancestor, whereas on t h e c o n t r a r y i n the other type i t i s pre-
c i s e l y the nearness of r e l a t i o n s h i p t o t h e common ancestor o f the group
which matters. The f i r s t of t h e two p r i n c i p l e s of clanship r e s u l t s i n
a group t h e members of which a r e of a b s o l u t e l y equal standing, a s f a r as
t h i s standing i s determined by membership i n the group (leaving a s i d e the
question of age). The second p r i n c i p l e r e s u l t s i n a group i n which every
s i n g l e member, except b r o t h e r s o r s i s t e r s , has a d i f f e r e n t standing; the
concept of t h e degree of r e l a t i o n s h i p l e a d s t o d i f f e r e n t degrees of mem-
bership i n the clan. In other words, some a r e members t o a higher degree
than others.

The l o g i c a l consequence of t h i s s t a t e o f a f f a i r s i s that, a t a c e r t a i n

p o i n t i t becomes dimbtful whether a person i s s t i l l t o be regarded a member
of a c e r t a i n clan, a question t h a t could never a r i s e i n a unilateral-exogam-
ous clan. Clan membership so t o speak shades o f f t h e f a r t h e r one i s away
from t h e center-line of t h e clan-. - t h e r e a l core of t h e group. This core,
t h e a r i s t o i , c o n s i s t s of those who a r e , o r a r e supposed t o b e descendants
of t h e common ancestor of the clan.

In most t r i b e s w i t h t h i s second type of c l a n d e s c e n t i s customarily

counted e i t h e r through men o r , more r a r e l y , through women, b u t very freq-
uently, e s p e c i a l l y i n the case of t h e a r i s t o i , descent may be counted
through e i t h e r o f them. That s i d e being chosen which g i v e s a person
'

a higher descent, L e . , a c l o s e r r e l a t i o n s h i p with t h e a n c e s t o r of the

group. The term flambilateralll has been coined f o r t h i s system ( F i r t h ,
1929).
Genealogies, unknown and unnecessary i n a u n i l a t e r a l c l a n , a r e here
t h e means of e s t a b l i s h i n g the " l i n e " of descent of t h e nobles, t h i s " l i n e N
being another concept unknown i n u n i l a t e r a l clans.

A c o r o l l a r y o f t h e second p r i n c i p l e of c l a n s h i p i s t h a t t h e r e i s no
exogamy i n t h e sense defined above. I n f a c t t h e r e could be none, s i n c e
t h e r e are no groups with d e f i n i t e and f i x e d "boundariesu. On t h e c o n t r a r y
we f i n d frequently a tendency towards c l o s e endogamy, however u s u a l l y only
f o r t h e a r i s t o i . Marriage between r e l a t i v e s of h i g h descent a s s u r e s t h a t
t h e i r offspring w i l l be of s t i l l higher descent.

The type of p r e f e r e n t i a l marriage most c h a r a c t e r i s t i c f o r t h i s type

of clan i s t h a t with p a r a l l e l r e l a t i v e s : t h e b r o t h e r ' s daughter and o r the
f a t h e r ' s b r o t h e r ' s daughter. We f i n d t h i s marriage a l l t h e way from a n c i e n t
Prussia, Greece, and Arabia, t o the Kwakiutl of t h e North American North-
west Coast who together with t h e Nutka seem t o be t h e only r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s
of t h i s type of clan organization on North American s o i l . Marriage w i t h
e i t h e r t h e b r o t h e r ' s daughter o r t h e f a t h e r ' s b r o t h e r ' s daughter may be
almost regarded a s a " l e i t f o s s i l " of t h i s type o f clan.

Another type of p r e f e r e n t i a l marriage found f r e q u e n t l y w i t h it i s

marriage with a h a l f - s i s t e r , i . e . , a s i s t e r by the same f a t h e r , b u t a
d i f f e r e n t mother. Neither of these two types of p r e f e r e n t i a l marriage
seems t o be ever found i n s o c i e t i e s organized i n t o unilateral-exogamous
clans.

The d i s t i n c t i o n between r u l e s of behavior f o r t h e noble core o f t h e

c l a n and f o r i t s outer f r i n g e runs through a l l s o c i e t i e s organized i n t o
clans of t h e second type. It i s the f e a t u r e which most c l e a r l y and sharply
s e t s off t h i s type of clan from t h e t l e q u a l i t a r i a n " unilateral-exogamous
clan, and it i s t h i s f e a t u r e which l i e s a t t h e r o o t of t h e very d i f f e r e n t
r o l e which t r i b e s organized i n t o the one o r t h e o t h e r type o f c l a n have
played i n the h i s t o r y of mankind. I n f a c t t h i s d i f f e r e n c e i n e v i t a b l y
flows from the o p p o s i t e p r i n c i p l e s which determine t h e s t r u c t u r e of t h e s e
two types of clans. The one d i v i d e s t h e t r i b e i n t o a number of s o l i d
blocks with clear-cut boundary l i n e s , each homogenous within. The
other r e s u l t s i n a type of s o c i e t y which may be likened t o a cone: t h e whole
t r j b k being one such cone, with t h e legendary m c e s t o r a t i t s top, but
within i t a r e a l a r g e r or smaller number of s i m i l a r cones, t h e top of each
coinciding with o r being connected with t h e top of the whole cone. The
bases of these cones, represent t h e c i r c l e of l i v i n g members of t h e various
clans a t a given moment, overlap here and there.

The t r i b e a s a whole has e s s e n t i a l l y the same s t r u c t u r e a s each of i t s

ccmp.~nentp a r t s : i t i s t h e r e f o r e only a question of a choice of words
whether we c a l l both of them '!tribeN, o r both of them "clanu, o r t h e l a r g e r
one " t r i b e v and t h e smaller ones "clans! . Professor Boas d i f f i c u l t i e s i n
h i s prfeseritation-'of Kwakiutl kinship 'organization i l l u s t r a t e t h i s p o i n t ,
Any one of t h e s e cones, l a r g e or small, can e x i s t by i t s e l f . With
the unilateral-exogamous type of clan, on the other hand, always a t l e a s t
two clans must e x i s t , and t h e body comprising two, o r more, of them together
-
does i t s e l f n o t have t h e s t r u c t u r e of a clan.

I n other words,, t h e two types of clan d i f f e r i n every s i n g l e aspect,

---
except t h e basic one, namely t h a t they a r e both based on t h e p r i n c i p l e of -
descent ( though a d i f f e r e n t one).

I n s o c i e t i e s of t h e '!concialH clan type it i s regarded a s a matter

of course t h a t a l l leading economic, social, r e l i g i o u s functions a r e
reserved, t o t h o s e of highest descent, i . e , those c l o s e s t t o t h e ancestor
of t h e clan and t r i b e , who f r e q u e n t l y i s regarded as a god. 'With t h e develop-
ment of production and of c u l t u r e a s a whole the r o l e of these a r i s t o i within
t h e l i f e of t h e c l a n and t h e t r i b e becomes ever more important. The nearer
i n descent t o t h e godlike ancestor a person is, t h e greater a r e h i s chances
i n t h e process of ever-growing economic and s o c i a l d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n .
S o c i a l d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n a t t h i s s t a g e of evolution of society ( a s well a s
of o t h e r s following i t ) the indispensable concomitant of higher forms of
cooperation, n o t only finds no o b s t a c l e i n t h i s type of clan, but on t h e
contrary an extremely f l e x i b l e medium, namely a hierarchy of r e l a t i v e s ,
based on t h e p r i n c i p l e of nearness of descent.

For a long p e r i o d to come t h i s p r i n c i p l e of clanship i s a b l e t o adapt

i t s e l f t o the ever-growing complexity of property r e l a t i o n s . A survey
of t h e t r i b e s organized i n t o c l a n s of t h i s 'type shows a whole s c a l e of
such adaptations t o t h e i n c r e a s i n g degree of s o c i a l d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n within
the t r i b e : mainly along the l i n e of a more marked s t r a t i f i c a t i o n of the
members of one and t h e same group. Thus some members of the clan may be
chiefs and. near-gods, while others, a t the opposite end of t h e s c a l e , may
be s l a v e s : y e t a l l of them a r e regarded a s r e l a t i v e s , and i n many cases
a r e a b l e t o prove it. ( e e g . among t h e h t k a ) .
The process of d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n within t h e clan, while f o r a long time
taking p l a c e w i t h i n t h i s f l e x i b l e u n i t , f i n a l l y reaches t h e p o i n t where t h e
-
i n t e r e s t s of t h o s e of equal standing, in a l l the clans of the t r i b e ,
o r even a number of t r i b e s , come i n t o such sharp c o n f l i c t with the i n t e r e s t s
of t h e other s t r a t a t h a t t h e i r struggle, t h e s t r u g g l e of by now fully-fledged I
s o c i a l classes, overshadows t h e old p r i n c i p l e s of c l a n s h i p and f i n a l l y l e a d s I
t o t h e break-up of t h e clan, f i r s t a s t h e dominating form of s o c i a l organ- i
i z a t i o n and then t o i t s f i n a l disappearance. This p o i n t , t h e end of one
phase of human h i s t o r y , and t h e beginning of another, has j u s t been reached
I
1

when t h e Greeks, the Romans and the Germans e n t e r t h e l i g h t of documented f

history. t
t
tf t
However none of the t r i b e s with which anthropology u s u a l l y d e a l s have 1.6
reached t h i s stage. The h i g h e s t s t a g e found here is, on t h e contrary, one
where i t i s s t i l l t o t h e advantage o f t h e a r i s t o i t o keep t h e clan orga'.niza-
!
f
4;
t i o n i n t a c t because it s t i l l serves them a s t h e b e s t i n s t r u m e n t i n t h e i r ;$sii
v
s t r u g g l e a g a i n s t t h e lower orders. The reason f o r t h i s i s n o t d i f f i c u l t '*IS
t o see. I n clans of t h e unilateral-exogamous type t h e o b l i g a t i o n s and -? $1i
p r i v i l e g e s of every c l a n member i n t h e f i n a l account equal each other.
Whatever b e n e f i t s t h e i n d i v i d u a l b e n e f i t s t h e c l a n a s a whole, and r e v e r s e l y
whatever strengthens t h e clan strengthens every one of i t s members i n an
equal measure. I n t h i s l i e s t h e greatness, b u t a t t h e same time t h e l i m i t a t i o n s
of t h i s type of clan. I n t h e "cone-shapedu clan, on t h e contrary, everthing
t h a t strengthens t h e clan s t r e n t h e n s above a l l i t s core, and correspond-
i n g l y : whatever any member contributes t o t h e w e l f a r e of t h e c l a n as a
whole b e n e f i t s above a l l t h e a r i s t o i .

Up t o a c e r t a i n p o i n t of economic and g e n e r a l c u l t u r a l development t h i s

strengthening of t h e core of t h e c l a n means a t t h e same time a strengthening
gy
ilw

of t h e whole clan. But i n t h e course of time t h i s becomes l e s s and l e s s

t r u e . The i n t e r e s t s of t h e a r i s t o i , and t o a l e s s e r degree t h o s e of t h e
middle s t r a t a where t h e s e have come i n t o e x i s t e n c e , become e v e r more s e p a r a t e
from and f i n a l l y opposed t o t h e i n t e r e s t b of t h e group a s a whole. But
If@;!
the bonds of clanship s t i l l e x i s t , and, up t o a c e r t a i n p o i n t , i t i s t o ^Is
t h e advantage of t h e a r i s t o i t o u t i l i z e them a g a i n s t the o t h e r s t r a t a
w i t h i n the clan.
;q
Iff1111
VII

The most i n s t r u c t i v e example of t h i s s t a t e of a f f a i r s i s o f f e r e d by

t h e I g o r o t t r i b e s of t h e n o r t h m o s t of t h e P h i l i p p i n e I s l a n d s , Luzon.
Amongst these t r i b e s whose economy i s based on t e r r a c e d a g r i c u l t u r e and
i r r i g a t i o n we a r e a b l e t o study c e r t a i n r a t h e r embryonic forms of s t r u g g l e
between t h e developing c l a s s e s of l a n d l o r d s and l a n d l e s s . Both s i d e s f i g h t
here completely w i t h i n the confines of t h e o l d c l a n o r g a n i z a t i o n which i s
s t i l l f u l l y i n t a c t . The s t r u g g l e has c e r t a i n outward forms of a r e l i g i o u s
character which, however, do n o t conceal t o t h e o b s e r v e r t h e e s s e n t i a l s of
t h e struggle.

Both wedding and f u n e r a l n e c e s s i t a t e among t h e s e t r i b e s t h e s a c r i f i c i a l

s l a u g h t e r i n g of a p i g by t n e n e a r e s t r e l a t i v e . The m a j o r i t y of t h e pop-
u l a t i o n , however, have no pigs. I f t h e y s t i l l own a p i e c e o f l a n d they have
t o pawn i t t o a r i c h man i n order t o g e t t h e r e q u i r e d p i g . If t h e y have '
already, a t a previous occasion, l o s t t h e i r land, t h e y have t o work o f f
the p r i c e of the pig.
Thus t h e concentration of land i n t h e hands of a few proceeds a t a r a p i d
pace*

The mechanism "tough which -this process o p e r a t e s i s the e q u a l i t y of

obligations, on t h e s u r f a c e r e l i g i o u s in character, f o r every member o f t h e
clan, be he r i c h o r poor. The c o n t i n u a t i o n of equal o b l i g a t i o n s un-
questionalby works t o the advantage of some a g a i n s t o t h e r s , a t a moment when
the development of t h e f o r c e s of production h a s a l r e a d y l e d t o f a r -
reaching economic and. s o c i a l d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n . Now t h e important p o i n t f o r
our problem i n a l l t h i s l i e s i n t h e f a c t t h a t both contending s i d e s a r e
very frequently, p o s s i b l y i n t h e m a j o r i t y of cases, members of t h e same clan.
I n f a c t they a r e under t h e mutual o b l i g a t i o n of blood vengeance. B u t t h i s
obligation too, under t h e conditions o f economic m e q u a l i t y and of t h e
p e c u l i a r i t i e s o f this type of c l a n system, works t o t h e advantage of t h e
a r i s t o i who can more o r l e a s f o r c e t h e l e s s e r members of t h e c l a n t,o come
t o t h e i r a s s i s t a n c e , and t h u s through composition f i n e s e x t r a c t e d from t h e
offender, a r e a b l e t o continuously i n c r e a s e t h e i r resources, which i n t u r n
gives them s t i l l greater hold over t h e i r poorer c l a n fellows.

Ihe r o l e which t h i s p r i n c i p l e of c l a n s h i p p l a y s here, a t a cornparatlively

advanced s t a g e of the evolution of economy and s o c i a l r e l a t i o n s , shows i t s
extraordinary f l e x i b i l i t y and a d a p t i b i l i t y . I t s c o n t r a s t t o the r i g i d
u n i l a t e r a l exogamous p r i n c i p l e of c l a n s h i p i s s t r i k i n g . However t h i s c o n t r a s t
should n o t induce us to overlook t h e f a c t t h a t both of these p r i n c i p l e s
of clanship and t h e form of c l a n t o which they l e a d belong e s s e n t i a l l y t o
t h e same phase o f t h e evolution of s o c i e t y . If we compare them e i t h e r with
t h e s t a g e of k i n s h i p o r g a n i z a t i o n which preceded it, o r v i t h t h e breakdown
of kinship organiiation; which followed, it, t h e common f e a t u r e of both t y p e s
'

of clan become a p p a r e n t ; both a r e based on t h e concept of descent which,

by grouping t h e l i v i n g and t h e dead t o g e t h e r i n t o s t a b l e and permanent u n i t s ,
permits of higher f o r m s of cooperation than those known before.

One of them however, seems through i t s r i g i d i t y t o l e a d i n t o a b l i n d

a l l e y , w h i l e the other, more f l e x i b l e , has become the form w i t h i n which i n a
long course of e v o l u t i o n s o c i a l d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n reached t h e p o i n t where it
l e d t o the formation o f s o c i a l c l a s s e s and i t s own consequent d e s t r u c t i o n .

F i r t h , R. W.
1929, P r i m i t i v e Economics of t h e New Zealand Maori. London.

Lowie, R- L*
3.934. "Social Organization" I n Encyclopedia o f S o c i a l Sciences, vol. 14,
pp. 141-148-