Descent and Alliance in the New Guinea Highlands: Some Problems of Comparison

Author(s): Andrew Strathern

Source: Proceedings of the Royal Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland,
No. 1968 (1968), pp. 37-52
Published by: Royal Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland
Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/3031706
Accessed: 05-02-2020 21:16 UTC

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms

Royal Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland is collaborating with JSTOR
to digitize, preserve and extend access to Proceedings of the Royal Anthropological
Institute of Great Britain and Ireland

This content downloaded from 164.41.4.26 on Wed, 05 Feb 2020 21:16:07 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 DESCENT AND ALLIANCE IN THE NEW GUINEA HIGHLANDS:
SOME PROBLEMS OF COMPARISON

The Curl Prize Essay 1968

ANDREw STRATHERN
Trinity College, Cambridge

Introduction And she recognises that it is 'because of the interplay

IN this essay I discuss a number of hypotheses relating of a number of principles [or, we may add, factors]
to New Guinea Highlands societies. Much contro- that patrilineal systems of descent vary from com-
versy on these societies has centred on the question munity to community' (1967: 105).
of whether their main groups can be described as What are the definitions of descent which Kaberry
descent groups or not and what factors influence the and Barnes are using here? Barnes distinguishes
degree of 'effective patrilineality' which they display. between 'filiation as a mechanism of recruitment to
This topic I take up in the first part of the essay. My social groups and to ascribed relationships, and
argument is that the question should be not 'Are descent as a sanctioned and morally evaluated
there descent groups in the Highlands?' but 'To what principle of belief' (1962: 6). He also refers to
levels of group structure are descent dogmas applied, Fortes's (1959) stipulation that we should 'restrict the
and why?' category "descent group" to groups in which descent
In the second part of the essay I argue that in com- is the only criterion for membership', and says that in
paring Highlands societies we must not restrict our- these terms it is hard to find descent groups in many
selves to the single variable of descent, but must Highlands societies (Barnes 1962: 6). But his position
consider alliance relationships also, and look for co- here is not entirely clear. Does he define descent as a
variation among a larger number of variables than we mechanism of recruitment or not? While his citation
have so far succeeded in doing. Much of my dis- of Fortes's definition would suggest this, his own
cussion resolves itself into a critique of current definition of filiation makes it difficult to follow such
hypotheses, but I hope that it may point the way to a an argument through. Yet his characterisation of
more detailed consideration of both descent and descent as a 'morally evaluated principle of belief' is
alliance in the Highlands. Only in this way shall we in fact highly relevant to the Highlands societies.
be able to achieve the satisfying structural comparisons Kaberry, agreeing with Firth (1963), treats descent
which the more obvious similarities and differences unequivocally as a recruitment principle but argues
between Highlands societies encourage us to attempt. that it is artificial to restrict the use of the term to
unilineal descent groups. 'What is crucial', she says,
Descent 'is that descent is a necessary qualification for
In 1962 Barnes pointed out that New Guinea High- membership', the only difference between unilineal
lands societies appear to fit uneasily into models and ambilineal systems being that in the former no
derived from African lineage systems. He argued that choice is available, whereas in the latter the individual
group ideology, processes of recruitment, and patterns at the least can choose between his mother's and his
of segmentation all make it doubtful whether we can father's group. She cites the definition of Notes and
regard Highlands societies as 'characterised by patri- queries (Royal Anthropological Institute 1951: 71):
lineal descent' (Barnes 1962: 6). He went on to 'socially, descent is the recognised [genealogical?]
hazard the generalisation that 'the area as a whole connection between a person and his ancestors'-
appears to be characterised by cumulative patrifilia- which does not directly specify that descent (Kaberry
tion rather than by agnatic descent' (1962: 6), and that says 'descent groups') can only be unilineal.
'in most ... Highland societies the dogma of descent Kaberry thus implicitly restricts descent to a
is absent or is held only weakly'. Yet Kaberry, in a recruitment principle and argues that it is of some
more recent article, disagrees, citing the Enga, Chimbu, importance in the Highlands. Barnes seems to hint
Kuma, Gahuku-Gama, Kyaka, Mendi, Kamano, that it can be something other than a recruitment
Siane, and Bena Bena as societies in which 'there principle, but suggests that in most Highlands
exists an ideology of patrilineal descent' (1967: 114). societies it is in fact unimportant. The problem is
She stresses that 'in the study of societies with patri- partly one of definition, similar to the problem of
lineal descent, whether they be in New Guinea or in defining 'kinship' for example; but there also seems
any other part of the world, one must analyse both the to be ethnographical disagreement. How can the
ideology and the operation of the principle of descent conceptual and ethnographical problems be resolved?
within the context of the political, economic, and Scheffler, in a number of recent contributions
ritual institutions of the society concerned' (1967: 121). (Scheffler 1964; 1965; 1966), has taken up this issue.

37

This content downloaded from 164.41.4.26 on Wed, 05 Feb 2020 21:16:07 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 He suggests that native categories which resemble
either our technical or our common-sense definitions
of descent should be labelled 'descent-constructs'. In
each case we have to examine what the constructs are
and what their importance is. His plea here is similar
to that of Leach (1961: 17sqq.), although Leach there
advocates complete abandonment of terms like descent
and filiation, in favour of analysing native ideas of the
transmission of 'substance' and 'mystical influence'.
(Contrast, however, the definitions adopted in Leach
1962.) Scheffler wishes to retain the term descent for
all 'formulations of genealogical connexions between
persons and their ancestors', or, even more widely, for
all formulations of 'genealogical continua' (1966: 543).
Scheffler's viewpoint has been applied successfully
to the study of Highlands systems by Marie de Leper-
vanche (1967; 1968). She quotes Scheffler's most
general statement of the functions of descent-con-
structs (de Lepervanche 1967: 73 quoting Scheffler
1965: 42). They can be: 1) a principle of recruitment;
2) a conceptualisation of group unity; 3) a statement
of the proper composition of the group [this seems
hardly to differ from 1], and 4) a statement of the
group's relations with other groups. Similar distinc-
tions are made by Glasse (1959), and by Barnes (1967)
in a reconsideration of Meggitt's material on the
Mae-Enga.
Such constructs, Scheffler argues, are a kind of
ideology, but we must not expect to find that the
ideology is completely consistent. It can be under-
stood only in relation to 'transactions': 'the espousal
of the dogma is a form of social action only to be
understood within a transactional context' (Scheffler
1965: 111). If there are inconsistencies in the ideology,
this is because its dogmas are advanced separately on
different social occasions. The Highlanders' ideas of
'descent' are a case in point, as are the ideas of the
Azande on witchcraft expounded long ago by Evans-
Pritchard (1937); and Scheffler's arguments are in part
applicable also to Evans-Pritchard's classic analysis of
the functions of agnatic descent dogmas among the
Nuer (Evans-Pritchard 1940).
Sahlins (1965) has put the matter succinctly, in his
argument that in some cases descent (i.e. descent-
constructs or dogmas) can be a matter of commitment as the fact of common residence itself is.
and political arrangement, not of recruitment. The
ideology of descent, applied to the level of group unity
or group inter-relations, is, as it were, blueprinted over concludes that among the Bena 'kinship can be
the statistical facts of the group's composition.
If we take these definitions of Scheffler and Sahlins, localised groups are given a kinship term: all male
and not simply those which Barnes and Kaberry them-
selves give (in Barnes 1962 and Kaberry 1967), we find
that there is truth in both of their viewpoints. Kaberry
is right in asserting that many Highlands societies have
an ideology of patrilineal descent-in the sense that
they conceptualise group unity and intersegment
relations in terms of descent dogmas (although they
also think of these relations in other ways). But
Barnes is also right in asserting that it is patrifiliationstress to the fact that the same commitment to preserve
and not agnatic descent which is usually crucial for
This content downloaded from 164.41.4.26 on Wed, 05 Feb 2020 21:16:07 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
determining a person's group-membership. More-
over, as all writers on the Highlands have pointed out
(e.g. Brown 1962; Langness 1964; de Lepervanche
1967), matrifiliation, co-residence, and participation
in exchanges and warfare or in cult rituals can all be
important also in determining affiliations.
I shall not discuss in detail material from all the
Highlands societies which bears on these two points,
since de Lepervanche has provided much of it in her
excellent survey and discussion. But her own stand-
point is a little obscure, and I should like to consider
it and that of Langness (1964), before examining the
hypotheses of Meggitt (1965) and Allen (1967) which
also employ the criterion of 'patrilineal descent' as a
crucial variable in their predictions on Highlands
social structure.
It is de Lepervanche's aim to generalise for all, or
most, of the Highlands societies. In the first half of
her paper she takes up the position that in the High-
lands it is locality ties, or 'common residence and
working together', rather than 'descent group member-
ship ascribed at birth', which are really important as
the 'bases of group solidarity' (1967: 143). She thus
deals with descent only as a recruitment principle, and
it is not until she has examined it from this point of
view that she turns back to ask what is in fact the most
pertinent initial question: how do the Highlanders
themselves apply their descent dogmas? (1968: 168).
She then discovers that the Highlanders do not appear
to look on it as a principle of recruitment so much as
a dogma for group unity. Assertions that 'we are all
brothers' are descent-or simply kinship-dogmas
explicitly aimed at fostering solidarity. But this
discovery weakens the force of de Lepervanche's first
argument, in which she attempts to dismiss descent
by treating it as a recruitment principle only. Even if
we regard descent dogmas as merely 'an expression'
of common residence, it is surely interesting that this
particular expression rather than others is regularly
chosen? Descent in the Highlands, as Scheffler would
put it, is a 'rhetorical norm', which invests common
residence with a justification which by itself it might
not have. It is arguable that descent dogmas are in
that case a 'basis' for group solidarity, just as much
Langness, in his study of the Bena Bena (Langness
1964), has argued similarly to de Lepervanche. He
achieved'. Those who are taken into the Bena
group members are 'brothers'. They also assert that
they are descendants of a single ancestor, and to that
extent think of themselves as a descent group. Yet
despite this Langness still feels free to argue that it is
local ties alone which are important, and he suggests
that 'the commitment to maintain the group strength
can and does over-ride descent as a recruitment
principle' (1964: 169). But he does not give equal
group strength and solidarity is admirably fostered by
38
 maintaining descent dogmas as a statement of group
unity. We should not ask 'Is this a local group or a
descent group?' for the question is too crudely
phrased. Nor is the problem solved by saying on the
one hand that it is locality which is important and on
the other that kinship can be achieved. The question
is rather 'Why kinship?' or 'Why descent-constructs?'
The Bena need not have developed a descent-based
ideology for their local groups; but they have done so.
Surely this is because kin and descent relationships
provide an excellent model for relations of inclusion
and opposition, and agnatic relationships especially
fit the emphasis in the Highlands on male strength,
co-operation, and superiority over women?
Yet this same overall stress in the Highlands is, as
we know, subject to considerable variations. Where
de Lepervanche attempts to generalise, other writers
have attempted to compare and contrast and even to
rank Highlands societies on continua. I shall argue
that these attempts at comparisons have also been
hampered by hasty or inconsistent uses of the term
'descent group'.
Meggitt's hypothesis (Meggitt 1965), associating a
stress on patrilineality with population pressure, is an
example of the difficulties involved in comparing
'descent' over a number of cases-difficulties which
Lewis (1965) has succinctly illustrated from African
material. Meggitt seems to accept the definition of
descent as a recruitment principle only (although his
formula, 'structured in terms of agnatic descent', does
not lead inexorably to that conclusion), and he adds
'patrilocality' to effective agnatic descent as a variable
to be quantified (1965: 266). His hypothesis is that
'where the members of a homogeneous society of
horticulturalists distinguish in any consistent fashion
between agnates and other relatives, the degree to
which social groups are structured in terms of agnatic
descent and patrilocality varies with the pressure on
available agrarian resources' (1965: 266).
The first clause of the proposition is perhaps too
general. Although Meggitt does quote evidence from
elsewhere in support of his argument, it seems better when population density is low and neighbours live
to replace the clause initially with 'in the Highlands of far apart, clan composition will remain agnatic
New Guinea', especially as Meggitt does not explain
why he chooses to limit the discussion to 'homo-
geneous' societies and to 'horticulturalists'.
But the main conceptual difficulty in the hypothesis
lies in the definition of 'agnatic structure' (cf. Barnes filiation [and presumably descent?] is emphasised as
1967). Sahlins (1963: 43) pointed out earlier, and
McArthur has recently shown in detail (1967) that
computation of the number of agnates in one of the
clan groups Meggitt describes must vary greatly,
depending on whether one takes the Enga's own
definition of a 'proper' clan member or the literal
definition of an agnate as given in Meggitt's glossary
(1965: 285). Meggitt's remarkably long and coherent
genealogy of Kara clan shows a number of men to be
descended from female clan members at a certain
generation remove from the present. These men
belong to what Meggitt calls 'nephew patrilineages'
This content downloaded from 164.41.4.26 on Wed, 05 Feb 2020 21:16:07 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
(1965: 34), and the Enga do not seem to regard them
as in any way different from 'full' agnates. McArthur
suggests that Meggitt may have followed Enga
classification in listing his percentage of agnates, and
that, if so, his figures may not be strictly comparable
to those of other anthropologists, based on different
conventions. Barnes (1967: 40) makes a similar point.
McArthur notes briefly that there is a similar problem
in relation to Langness's figures (McArthur 1967: 285;
Langness 1964: 165).
In a number of his tables Meggitt distinguishes
between agnates, non-agnates, and an intermediate
category of persons, whom he calls 'quasi-agnates'.
Quasi-agnates are the children of 'co-resident sons of
female agnates' (Meggitt 1965: 32). (Interestingly, we
find that the children of cross-cousins are in any case
classified as 'children' by a male ego. This is a feature
of Mae-Enga kin terminology which clearly facilitates
the incorporation of cross-cousins' children; and it is
probably shared by many other Highlands societies,
certainly by the Maring (Rappaport 1968: 24), the
Narak (Cook n.d.), and the Melpa-speaking Hageners
(Strathern 1965).) But this distinction is not followed
in his Table 4, on the composition of Enga clan
parishes, where the division is into agnates, other
cognates, and affines. 'Other cognates' here presum-
ably include both the quasi-agnates and their fathers,
the co-resident 'sisters' sons'. But it is just possible
that in some of the clans, which were less well known
to Meggitt, quasi-agnates have passed into the agnate
category. Could it be that the better one comes to
know a clan, the more progressively 'non-agnatic' its
total genealogy (if there is such a thing) becomes? If
that is so, it would perhaps explain why Taro A clan
appears to have 78 per cent. of its men as agnates with
a population density of only fifty per square mile,
while clan Mae C has only 76 per cent. agnates but a
population density as high as 200 per square mile!
Even if this is not the explanation, the figures are
certainly against the general correlation which Meggitt
proposes. Rappaport (1968: 27) has suggested that
because the land acquired through agnatic ties is most
'convenient to a man's residence and other lands are
not'. With moderate density, intermingling will in-
crease, but with high density 'the primary principle of
the basis for rights in land' again. Whether this
suggestion is applicable to the cases shown in Meggitt's
table is a point which would need further clarification,
but one general point seems clear: the best way to test
Meggitt's hypothesis would be to do so within areas
where there is least cultural difference between the
units taken for testing. The Taro, Mae, and Laiapu
clans would provide an excellent opportunity for this,
and one of the first questions to answer would be
whether Taro A and Mae C fit into Rappaport's
suggestions or not.
With Langness's figures there are two problems.
39
First, he includes co-resident in-married wives in his
figures for non-agnates 'of' Nupasafa clan parish.
Thus: 'of the 110 male residents . . . thirty-three (or
30 per cent.) are non-agnates. Of the 122 female
residents, seventy-eight (or 64 per cent.) are non-
agnates. So, of the total number of residents, 111 out
of 232 (or 48 per cent.) are non-agnates' (Langness
1964: 166). He justifies this procedure by arguing
that the in-married wives, 'for all practical purposes,
are just as much members of the group as are the
males' (1964: 166). But what of ritual purposes, and
what of warfare in the past, and exchange activities?
In a later article (Langness 1967) the author himself
abandons his previous viewpoint, calls Nupasafa a
patrilineal exogamous clan (1967: 169), and stresses
male-female antagonism and separation, expressed
through an initiation cult and fostered by warfare.
The evidence does not support his earlier contention
that the wives are 'just as much members of the group
as are the males' in any simple way. What does lend
it a certain plausibility-and at the same time marks
the Bena Bena out ethnographically-is the apparent
curtailment of affinal ties, carried to the extent of the
bride's choosing a 'brother' for herself from her
husband's local group, especially if she comes from far
away. Thirty-nine of sixty-five married women in
Nupasafa had done so, and the others would do so
later or came from nearby (Langness 1964: 178).
Women from distant places thus do seem among the
Bena to be cut off from their own kin; but that is a
different matter from saying that they are as much
members of the clan group as their husbands. For
comparison with other accounts we should probably
take Langness's figure of 30 per cent. male non-agnatic
residents, rather than his higher figure of 48 per cent.
which includes the wives living in orthodox patriviri-
local residence.
Second, we find that in two of Langness's level LI
groups (1964: 165) the line of descent from founders
to current old men is not unbroken. Are the members
of these groups, then, to be classified as agnates, quasi- Tsembaga group; and by Maring rules these refugees
agnates, or what? Langness's account (1964: 167)
implies that his departure point for determining who
are the non-agnates is lower down in the genealogy
than the point where the descent line is broken in this attempt land conquest, and an increase in manpower
way. If so, it looks again as though he has followed
Bena classification in some way rather than a literal
application of the term 'agnate'. And Bena classifica-
tion may not be isomorphic with that of the Enga or
other Highlands peoples. The classifications should
in fact themselves be made an object of study. In the
higher levels of a genealogy, whether we find non-
agnatic links or not, for example, depends entirely on
how the people manipulate their genealogies for social
purposes (cf. Bohannan 1952). Ryan, in an early
article (1959: 286), pointed out that it is in some cases possibility in a situation of land shortage is to draw a
'useless to talk of clan-territory composition in terms
of percentages of agnates and non-agnates, because
the term agnatic is meaningful only when referred to a loans and in transfers. Criper's field-work area,
specific descent line'. It seems that the Mendi main-
This content downloaded from 164.41.4.26 on Wed, 05 Feb 2020 21:16:07 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
tain some kind of genealogical record of agnatic and
non-agnatic links high up in their clan genealogies.
The precise role of such a record is hard to estimate,
but perhaps we could say that it reflects the importance
of matrilateral kinship and affinal links in welding
Mendi clan-clusters together, and that the Mendi feel
no need to convert the record into a purely agnatic
form-unlike the Mae-Enga (Meggitt 1965: 33). The
apparent percentages of agnates and non-agnates are
incidental, in a sense, to this larger point. At least it
is clear, as McArthur has put it and Africanists have
surely long been aware, that 'genealogies are important
not because they are necessarily an accurate record of
people's relationships but because they indicate what
people believe these relationships to be' (McArthur
1967: 285).
Other difficulties in Meggitt's hypothesis follow
from this point. His formula, 'the degree to which
social groups are structured in terms of agnatic
descent', implies that the conceptualisation of group
segments is involved as well as processes of recruit-
ment. Yet such conceptualisation may differ quite
considerably from the details of recruitment processes
(Sahlins 1965). Recruitment rules, even, may not be
the same as dogmas relating to group unity and inter-
group opposition. If this is so, how can we rate the
overall 'strength' of the descent principle in a number
of societies, when its 'strength' may show in different
domains of social structure in different cases (cf. again
Lewis 1965)? Even if we restrict ourselves to some
arbitrary operational definition of agnatic structure
(cf. Bulmer 1966: 128), say to processes of recruitment
only, it is doubtful whether the hypothesis will work.
Rappaport has supported Meggitt's argument with his
own three-stage scheme of group structure, presenting
the final stress on patrifiliation with critical population
density as a 'systemic possibility' for the Maring
(1968: 26). But although at least one Maring popula-
tion, the Kauwasi, seems to have been shorter of land
than most, it still took in many war refugees from the
were obliged to fight for their hosts in warfare.
Rappaport's material suggests, in fact, that one
alternative in a situation of population pressure is to
would clearly be a help towards this, although a
liability in case of defeat. The Kauwasi, at any rate,
violated Maring taboos on the occupation of enemy
territory in their search for land (Rappaport 1968:
152). The Mae-Enga, too, seem to have resorted to
belligerence in cases of land shortage in the past, and
nowadays employ vigorous litigation. With tem-
porarily successful belligerence, the need to restrict
membership to agnatps would not appear so strong.
Criper (1967) has shown that another systemic
high proportion of fallow land into cultivation and to
continue to allow flexible allocation of plots, both in
Upper Chimbu, has a higher population density than
40
 Central Chimbu (Brookfield &Brown 1963): hereports one, and even if there happen to be 60 per cent. 'non-
a density of 520 per square mile in one district-section agnates' in a parish (Meggitt 1965: 273), this is not
of 1,254 people in 1964 and 400 for the whole district regarded as a deviation from an agnatic ideal. The
of 3,571 persons. The Central Chimbu had already Huli are probably one of the few Highlands peoples
proved somewhat recalcitrant to Meggitt's argument whose group ideology is based on constructs which are
in 1965, since although they conceptualise their group not predominantly patrilineal-although they do
segments in agnatic terms and seem to have a popula- distinguish consistently between agnates and other
tion density comparable to that of the Mae-Enga, they relatives (cf. Glasse 1962; 1968). Because of this
do not stress patrifiliation as a criterion for group difference in ideology, it seems unwise to compare the
membership in the way the Mae appear to do. Meggitt Huli directly with some of the other Highlands peoples
had argued that this could be because effective popula- in terms of 'effective patrilineality' at all.
tion pressure is less among the Chimbu than the Mae
owing to higher crop yields and opportunities for Alliance
migration out. Criper's material thus provides a Another writer who has relied on the criterion of
further test case. Upper Chimbu is at a higher patrilineality (among other factors) in setting up a
altitude than Central Chimbu and fallow periods are comparative hypothesis is Allen (1967). Allen, how-
shorter, hence yields are likely to be reduced; and ever, attempts to take more variables into account
migrations out of the area to other parts of Chimbu than does Meggitt in his book of 1965. Earlier, in
or elsewhere have been few. Yet neither do the Upper 1964, Meggitt had produced another hypothesis which
Chimbu emphasise an agnatic model for inter-group partly meshes in with that of Allen, and after a brief
and in-group relations, nor do they restrict land-rights summary I shall discuss them both. The interest of
to agnates more than is done in Central Chimbu. these two hypotheses for our discussion is that they
Instead, land claims can be obtained either through introduce intermarriage and alliance relationships, in
one's father or one's wife's father, and men who use addition to descent constructs, as factors to be corre-
their affinal links in this way tend to join the wife's lated with others. Instead of attempting simply to
father's group. Criper goes so far as to argue that the relate descent to population pressure, I am now
Upper Chimbu do not employ agnatic descent- attempting to relate descent and alliance to each
constructs at all, so we cannot be sure to what extent other-a step in the direction of more complicated
they fall within the terms of Meggitt's hypothesis; but
structural models, which, I suggest, we must try to
they are at the very least closely related to the Central
take if we are to understand both continuities and
Chimbu who do use such constructs, and it seems variations in Highlands societies.
they can be regarded as a limiting case; they negate Meggitt (1964) points out that many writers on the
Meggitt's hypothesis, and show that in a situation of Highlands have commented on the tense or hostile
heavy population pressure agnatic concepts of recruit-relations between the sexes there. He argues that
ment may not be stiffened but abandoned, and variations in intersexual hostility correlate with 'the
replaced by notions of inheritance via patrifiliation presence
or or absence of particular kinds of men's
affinity. Why the Upper Chimbu do not use agnatic purificatory cults, with differences in the social status
models for segment relations is another matter. It of women in everyday life, and with the degree of
seems unlikely that population density can be the hostility between affinally-related groups' (Meggitt
answer here. There is no particular reason why in this1964: 206). He does not posit any direction of causal
context ideology should vary directly with ecology sequences or the relative efficacy of particular factors,
(Sahlins 1965); and this makes for a further difficulty
but contents himself with sketching two different syn-
in Meggitt's ranking of Highlands societies in terms dromes. Among the Enga, in the Western Highlands,
of a simple scale of patrilineality plotted against the emphasis is on the dangerous, polluting qualities of
population density (Meggitt 1965: 279). On his scale women. There are cults to purify bachelors, wives are
Meggitt rates the Huli of the Southern Highlands as strongly under the control of their husbands, and
lower both in population density and in 'patri- marriage is predominantly with enemy groups,
lineality' than the Mendi. Yet in places, he says, Huli although individual exchange partnerships between
population density reaches seventy per square mile, a affimes are important. Among the Kuma of the
figure comparable to that for at least some Mendi clan Central Highlands different features appear. The
parishes. If one chose Mendi and Huli local groups Kuma show little concern over menstrual pollution
with the same population density, would one expect to and have no purificatory cults; marriage is largely
find that overall patrilineality or even the incorpora- between friendly groups; and there is a battle of the
tion of non-agnates would be the same among them? sexes, with an emphasis on antagonism. This Meggitt
Surely not, for Huli ideology differs significantly from links to the higher status of Kuma women by com-
its Mendi counterpart. The Huli parish is not even parison with the Enga-although evaluations of this
conceived of by the people themselves as an agnatic kind are notoriously difficult to make. Meggitt looks
unit in the way the Mendi clan appears to be. The on the Hagen and Chimbu societies as intermediate
Huli use long genealogies to gain entry into a number between the Enga and the Kuma, since in them there
of parishes, not as a charter for membership in a single is fear of pollution, but marriage is largely with

41

This content downloaded from 164.41.4.26 on Wed, 05 Feb 2020 21:16:07 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
friendly groups, women's status is high, and so on.
In the Eastern Highlands all the factors seem to be
found: there is antagonism as well as fear of pollution,
marriage with enemy groups, purificatory and
initiation cults for youths (but also for girls), and
women's status is highly ambivalent. Meggitt sug-
gests that features of his Enga and Kuma syndromes
are here found in parallel (1964: 220-1).
Allen has a slightly more ambitious aim, akin to
Meggitt's in his 1965 discussion of patrilineality. He
isolates a particular kind of male initiation ritual,
involving 'associations in which membership is com-
pulsory for all adult and adolescent males of a
particular community' (1967: 8). This kind of
association, he argues, is most likely to be found where
'the social division between the sexes is both extreme
and pervasive' (p. 10), and the latter is likely to be most into an agnatic structure, 'this can be read either way',
highly developed 'in those societies in which all or
most of the men of a locality are members of a single
exogamous patrilineal descent group' (p. 12). Further,
'when spouses are taken from remote,, strange, and,
above all, hostile groups, the sex division is likely to
take an extreme form' (p. 12). However, where the
solidarity of the men in the local group is lessened
through internal differences of status, initiation rites
of the kind he is investigating are, according to Allen,
less likely to occur.
Meggitt's and Allen's hypotheses are of a rather
different type. Meggitt suggests a cluster of variables,
Allen a particular causal sequence, thus:
Meggitt's hypothesis:
Syndrome A: marriage with enemy groups+fear of
female pollution+purificatory cults+
low status of women. Type-case: the
Enga.
Syndrome B: marriage with friendly groups+sex
antagonism+lack of purificatory
cults+high status of women. Type-
case: the Kuma.
Allen's hypothesis:
1 Monocarpellary local l
groups particular
2 Patrilineal descent acute l of
3 Marriage with enemy sex iniaon either Allen or Meggitt, although Langness (1967) has
groups division initiation
4 Relative status J ritual
equality of men J
Type-cases: Eastern Highlands societies, and the
Enga.
Initial difficulties with both these hypotheses lie in
the definition of the 'status of women' and of 'sex
division'. The former we can allow to pass only when
we have pointed out that women's status throughout
the Highlands seems to be ambivalent, and assertions
that Kuma women have higher status than Enga
women need to be substantiated by a closer analysis
of the components involved in the comparison. The
fact that Kuma women are often more recalcitrant to
This content downloaded from 164.41.4.26 on Wed, 05 Feb 2020 21:16:07 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
the wishes of their menfolk than their Enga counter-
parts may be related, not to any higher formal status,
but to the exigencies of the Kuma marriage system,
which I shall discuss later. The difficulty with Allen's
term 'sex division' is that it is rather a broad one. At
times Allen seems to mean by it 'fear of pollution', at
times 'sex antagonism', and at times both these things.
Thus it is that he is able to class the Enga along with
the Eastern Highlands societies, although in Meggitt's
scheme they are separated.
The next difficulty with Allen's hypothesis is the
same as appeared in Meggitt's 1965 scheme: he falls
foul of the ambiguities involved in defining degrees of
patrilineality. Sometimes he adduces rates of in-
corporation of non-agnates as a sign of weak patri-
lineality. But if non-agnates are rapidly assimilated
as Barnes has remarked (Barnes 1967: 42; cf. Lewis
1965: 97). Second, even if it could be agreed that
recruitment of non-agnates indicated weak patri-
lineality at this level, what of patrilineal dogmas at the
level of the group itself? Langness's material on the
Bena shows that they practise both easy assimilation
and the maintenance of agnatic dogmas. The local
group is thus not necessarily made less solidary by the
incorporation of outsiders (Langness 1964). The
search for an over-all emphasis on patrilineality which
Allen undertakes is the pursuit of a chimera. What
matters is the assertion of group solidarity and male
superiority, which is often effected by descent dogmas
applied to the whole group and not to recruitment
processes. In other words, what matters is the
assertion that the local group is monocarpellary and
agnatic rather than whether it has a simple patrilineal
'history' or not.
A factor which both Meggitt and Allen mention but
do not probe extensively is the pattern of inter-
marriage between groups, or, more widely, inter-
group alliance relations (cf. Berndt 1964). Implicit in
Meggitt's approach is the notion that fear of female
pollution is closely connected with (perhaps dependent
on) a pattern of intermarriage with enemy groups; and
Allen also lists 'marrying one's enemies' as a factor
conducive to an 'acute sex division'. Specifically how
sex antagonism is generated is not much discussed by
taken it up and provided a number of answers.
If these propositions were true, they would imply,
ceteris paribus, that marriage with friendly groups
would be connected with a relative lack of pollution
fears and also with a 'less acute' sex division. To
what extent is this true'?
The first distinction we must make is that between
interpersonal and inter-group alliance relations (cf.
Brown 1964). As Brown has put it, one may marry
into enemy groups, yet maintain friendly relations with
one's particular affines. The same tends to be even
more true of extra-clan kinship relations, as I shall
demonstrate later. In such a case the husband, in his
individual relationship with his wife and affines, might
42
not show hostility at all. (Conversely, even if marriage rivals, perhaps military enemies (cf. Douglas 1966:
is between friendly groups, relations with certain of
one's affines may remain distant and tinged with
hostility.) The sex division thus cannot be simply
related to marriage with enemy groups. The nature of
affinal relations, the kinds of exchanges affines are
expected to make, must be considered as an intervening
variable. Moreover, fear of pollution is also not
simply dependent on marriage with enemies, since it
appears in Highlands societies whiere marriage is not
predominantly with enemies, for example in Hagen
and Chimbu. Establishing the degree to which such a
fear is culturally emphasised may not be a simple
matter either.
Further, antagonism between husband and wife is,
I would suggest, likely to be dependent on the degree
to which the prospective partners to a marriage are
able to choose each other, as well as to the nature of
the affinal tie. To allow choice does not ensure that
there will be no antagonism, as the Kamano case
shows (Berndt 1962); but denial of choice-can lead to
antagonism even if marriage is largely with friendly
groups and affines are expected to be friendly also.
The Kuma demonstrate this: before marriage a Kuma
girl is sexually free, but because of the exchange
system of marriage she is often forced into a relation-consistently; in others there will be an equal recogni-
ship against her choice, and rebellion follows. The
Mae-Enga, for all Meggitt's emphasis on the low
status of their women, do not have such rigid arrange- general hypothesis would thus run as follows: strain in
ments (Meggitt 1964: 216; 1965: 105sqq.). The Bena
case shows a related point: even where marriage is
with hostile groups, it is the marriage arrangements reveal a concern with group 'boundaries'. Where
themselves, and not the fact of affinal hostility, whichgroup alliances are minimised, this concern is likely
determine husband-wife relations. Like the Kuma,
the Bena hold courting parties which are 'elaborate,
time-consuming, and uninhibited' (Langness 1967:
167), and yet they deny choice in marriage to either
partner. Each may thus be dissatisfied with a marriage
arrangement, and antagonism results. Langness goes
further, and argues that the antagonism was tradition-
ally exacerbated by warfare, which perpetuated the
sex division and frustrated certain 'sex and dependency
needs' (which he posits a priori) among the Bena. He
adduces as evidence of this the fact that with the end of
warfare many of the cult usages which maintained
male superiority and the separation of the sexes have
been given up. Yet one doubts whether marital
relations will become less antagonistic unless the
system of marriage arrangements is also changed.
Lack of choice of marital partner, culturally-estab-
lished fears of menstrual pollution, and the lack of
effective ties between affines have probably all
tributed to the uneasy relationship between the sexes
among the Bena, as well as the violent pattern of
warfare.
Pollution fears and the sex division are thus not
simply an outcome of marrying into enemy groups;
although we could argue that they reveal a concern
with group boundaries which is consonant with inter-
marriage between groups which are in some way
147). Such a concern with boundaries is likely to
show itself in a number of ways: 1) in affinal relations.
We can suggest that strain in these is connected with
marrying into enemy groups, although this is by no
means the whole picture, as we shall see. 2) It may
show in a stress on cult activities which separate the
men of a clan both from their wives and from the men
of other clans. This is naturally modified when it is a
wider unlit than the clan which holds a common
religious festival; but clans may appear as separate
units even when they agree to synchronise their rituals.
It is modified also when alliances with other groups
are specifically recognised in the rituals themselves.
3) It may show also in attitudes to the incorporation of
'outsiders' into clan-groups. I am not here arguing
that where concern with boundaries is high 'outsiders'
will be discouraged from joining the group, although
this is true for the Mae-Enga; but that their entry will
be masked more strongly by assertions that all group
members are descendants of the clan founder. In all
cases I would expect to find that when clan solidarity
is being stressed all male clan members will be referred
to as 'brothers' or 'sons of a single father'. But in
some systems these assertions will be maintained more
tion on some occasions that the group contains a
number of affinal or sister's son members. The
relations between affines, a stress on separatist cult
activities, and masking of the induction of non-agnates
to be high; where they are strong and relatively long-
lasting, it is likely to be lower, depending on the degree
to which allied groups are also rivals.
A preliminary note on the definition of alliance is
required here. Protagonists in the descent versus
alliance controversies have sometimes used alliance
simply to refer to connexions between groups by
marriages (whether governed by a prescriptive rule or
not), without further defining the nature of these con-
nexions (cf. Schneider 1965: 50, 56-7). Ethno-
graphers have used it to mean purely friendly links
(e.g. Criper 1967). But perhaps it is better to accept
the wider formulation of Radcliffe-Brown (1952:
90-116) that alliance implies varying combinations of
friendship and hostility, or conjunction and disjunc-
tion, between the parties involved, alnd that affinal
relationships, exchanges of goods and service, and
joking relationships can all be examples of alliance in
con- this sense. Alliance relations both define groups as
separate from, or even opposed to, each other, and
link them by 'the social conjunction of friendliness and
mutual aid' (Radcliffe-Brown 1952: 95). Radcliffe-
Brown suggests that in some cases there is 'real
friendliness . . . combined with an appearance of
hostility' (p. 94). In others, we may add, both the
friendliness and the hostility are equally 'real'. In
such cases, competition is added to alliance. The

43

This content downloaded from 164.41.4.26 on Wed, 05 Feb 2020 21:16:07 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 situation is common in the Highlands of New Guinea
and throughout Melanesia, and is often intensified by
the activities of big-men who are political leaders.
If this is so, it could be argued that my proposition is cation of descent dogmas, attitudes to women, and
unlikely to be true. Where groups are allied, the
argument would run, they will still show a concern to
define themselves in opposition to each other, and is
this not the same as showing concern with group
boundaries?
There is some force in this objection. However,
while it is true that allied groups always stress to some
extent their separateness, their overall concern with
in-group exclusiveness is likely to be lessened. It is
modified both by their charters of alliance at the inter-
group level and by interpersonal exchange links. In
such a system the concern with group definition may
be as great as in one where alliances are minimised,
but this is not quite the same as in-group exclusiveness
or a concern with group boundaries. The actual
extent to which conjunction is stressed varies. Hence
the degree to which alliances do affect exclusiveness is
a matter for investigation. It would be possible to
imagine a system in which there was a strong 'alliance'
between groups, but this was compounded with a
strong antagonism also. However, this would be a
limiting case, and I shall use 'strong alliance' to imply
in most cases an emphasis on friendliness. I am not
assuming that such friendliness automatically pro-
duces a lesser concern with group boundaries, but it is most with traditional allies, and these 'exchanged
likely to do so, and I shall examine the extent to which
it in fact does have this effect.
The Bena Bena seem to supply us with a kind of
extreme case, although we do not yet have published
information on the statistics of intermarriage among
them, nor much detail on the kinds of military ties
there were between the clans of a Bena tribe. The
extreme concern of the Bena clansmen with group
boundaries, however, seems to show in 1) a denial of
affinal ties; 2) an emphasis on violent warfare coupled
with a stress on male superiority; 3) menstrual taboos
and elaborate initiation cults for males; and 4) the very
rapid absorption of immigrants into the kinship
structure of the clan and the apparent assertion that all
clan members are agnatic descendants of the clan
founder. The stress on menstrual pollution found with
a pattern of marrying enemies-(if we can be sure of
this: at least some Bena marriages are made within the
tribe)-is consistent with Meggitt's (1964) predictions,
although whether the status of Bena and Mae women
can be equated is more doubtful; what we can say is
that both Bena and Mae women are strongly in-
corporated into their husband's group, but this does
not necessarily mean that the Bena husband has the
same degree of jural control over his wife as the Mae
husband may have. Sex antagonism, which Meggitt
in fact linked to a high status of women among the
Kuma, is present also, a result of Bena marriage
arrangements. And initiation ritual follows Allen's
predictions, except that we cannot simply say that the
Bena are strongly (or weakly) patrilineal. Instead we
This content downloaded from 164.41.4.26 on Wed, 05 Feb 2020 21:16:07 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
can say that they emphasise male in-group solidarity
and independence strongly, and seem to underplay
both group and individual alliances. Cults, the appli-
warfare patterns all seem to be connected with this
basic fact.
Whether the Bena really form such an extreme case
or not is a matter of doubt. Perhaps they are really
closer than I have depicted them to their linguistically
closest relatives, the Gahuku-Gama and the Guru-
rumba (Wurm 1964); and to the Siane, who belong to
the same language family. These three show at least
some emphasis on a buffer-group, if not an alliance
sphere, wider than the localised clan: the Siane phratry
(Salisbury 1962: 13-14), the Gururumba phratry and
tribe (Newman 1965: 31-3), and the Gahuku sub-
tribe and tribe (Read 1965: 33). Within this wider
unit warfare was forbidden, and this was supported
by a vague assertion of common descent and common
ancestral occupation of a territory. Members of the
wider unit would not automatically help each other in
warfare against others, but at the least would remain
neutral. Perhaps the Bena tribe is this kind of unit
also. Outside the buffer-group less permanent
alliances were made for particular bouts of warfare,
and these pacts were marked by limited intermarriage
and exchange feasts (Read 1965: 34; Salisbury 1962:
25). The Gahuku, however, preferred to intermarry
wealth and gave each other sanctuary in time of need'
(Read 1965: 33). The Siane, by contrast, had no
traditional allies outside the phratry, yet within the
phratry marriage is not allowed, so that all brides
must come from hostile or potentially hostile clans.
For the Gururumba, it is only the localised clan which
is exogamous; marriage within the phratry, and the
tribe (composed of a pair of phratries), is possible-
as is intra-tribal marriage among the Bena.
Given the fact that the Siane must marry outside
their 'security circle' (cf. Lawrence 1967), one might
expect a strong concern among them over the
'boundaries' of their village-based clan groups, and
there is some evidence pointing in this direction. The
Siane are concerned to expel maternal blood from
their children, and at the same time are ambivalent
about sending their clan daughters away in marriage.
Relations between intermarrying clans are always
conducted at a group level with formal spokesmen.
If non-agnates are taken in, they are rapidly assimi-
lated to the structure of the localised lineage. Rela-
tions between affines are formal and ambivalent in
tone. Yet the maternal kin do not accept this clan
exclusiveness. They keep up their ties with their
sisters and their children, and most non-agnatic clan
members are sisters' sons. However, all men who
have had their initiation or bride-price financed by
their clan of residence are regarded as clan members.
Full clan membership is transmitted by the gradual
increase in the individual of ancestral spirit, com-
municated by ritual, especially at initiation. Norma-
44
 tively, this is expected to be paternal spirit, and the
growth of this is matched by the rituals to expel
maternal spirit, and by payments to the maternal kin
(Salisbury 1962: 132-3; 1964; 1965).
However, much of this syndrome is shared by the
Gahuku (Read 1965: 132), Gururumba (Newman
1965: 68), Bena Bena (Langness 1967: 165), and
Kamano (Berndt 1962: ch. 5); and this suggests that
we are dealing here with a common substratum of
culture, parts of which are peculiar also to the Eastern
Highlands. Thus, although the Gahuku tend to
marry their traditional allies, they show much the
same emphasis on male initiation cults and much the
same uneasy relations with affines as do the Siane.
Inter-sex antagonism is also at least as great: in fact
Read emphasises it much more than Salisbury does
for the Siane-possibly the ethnographer's bias of
interests is a variable which complicates comparative
discussion here. The conclusion, then, is that inter-
group alliances do not have an overriding effect on
features such as 'the sex division' where other cultural
factors tend to bear on it also. Allen would probably
link this to the fact that in the Eastern Highlands local
groups are both monocarpellary and nucleated; but
whether there is also less status differentiation between
men in tlhis area than in the Central and Western
Highlands seems doubtful (cf., e.g. Read 1959;
Salisbury 1962).
In the Central Highlands, among the Chimbu,
Kuma, and Hageners, there is a more overt stress on
friendly relations between affines, and this seems to
correlate with a dominant pattern of intermarriage
between friendly groups. But descent dogmas and
relations between the sexes are not precisely the same
in all three cases.
For the Chimbu the material on patterns of inter-
marriage is relatively explicit (Brown 1964). A sample
of marriages made by men of the Naregu tribe in
Central Chimbu showed 44.1 per cent. intra-tribal
marriage and 46.3 per cent. marriage with near tribes.
It is hard to break the latter percentage down into
marriages with friendly or hostile groups since 'all
tribes have fought from time to time with all the tribes
on their borders' (Brown 1964: 352). The statement
here is a little disappointing, since it does not tell us the exogamous unit, all groups in the outer circle are
whether some tribes are regarded as traditional
enemies or allies by the Naregu themselves. All we
can say is that there is an almost equal pressure to
intra- and to near-tribe marriage. In both cases
individual relations with affines are friendly, showing
none of the formalities of the Siane relationship; and
this is surely correlated with the lesser 'exclusiveness' channels for land grants and a fluid pattern of resi-
of the Chimbu clan. Clan territories within the tribe
tend to be interdigitated, and the tribe is an alliance
unit in warfare. Intra-tribal marriage facilitates land
grants via affinal ties, and enables men to participate
in the affairs of a number of local groups to which
they are connected. The same holds to a lesser extent
where marriage is between tribes, and extra-tribal
affines are important as sources of help when the
This content downloaded from 164.41.4.26 on Wed, 05 Feb 2020 21:16:07 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
whole tribe is holding its Pig Festival. Individual
affinal alliance is thus strongly valued among the
Chimbu, and this is surely to some extent reinforced
by the concentration of marriages within the political
unit. Summarising the differences between the Siane
and the Chimbu, one could almost say that whereas
the Siane forbid marriage within their security circle
(which is much smaller than the Chimbu tribe), the
Chimbu encourage it. Affinal relations (but not matri-
lateral ties) and attitudes to the incorporation of non-
agnates seem to be correspondingly much easier
among the Chimbu. These, and other relevant
features of Siane and Chimbu social structure, can be
represented in a simplified diagram (figs. 1 and 2), and
similar diagrams can be made for other Highlands
societies, e.g. Gahuku (fig. 3), Kuma (fig. 4), Hagen
(fig. 5), and Mae-Enga (fig. 6).
Fig. 1: SIANE
outside groups
dispersed reciprocal marriages
flc n ephratry/
te exogamous unit,oal ous i t
religious festival holds-ton (wid)us s itity cral
descent unit,
channel fo lan nno warfare; wider p o
ina t ilouctuating enemy/aly s
within th ~ cloe securityciceaenihrsegtndno
Chimbu case theyarie, and afinalg ikspovd
Figures I and 2 show that Siane and Chimbu shar
a number of features: there is ideally no warfare with
fluctuating enemy/ally groups, and a common
religious festival holds the (wider) security circle
together. But in the Siane case 'brother' relations
within the security circle are neither strengthened nor
modified by individual affinal ties, whereas in the
Chimbu case they are, and affinal links provide
dence and affiliation. Rigid clan 'boundaries', either
in a territorial or a conceptual sense, are not main-
tained, and the small Chimbu 'lineages' or 'one-blood
groups' (Brown 1967) contain a number of non-
agnates, whose presence is not necessarily masked by
fictional agnation (Brown 1967: 42). (One wonders
Bena case or1,m not.)x
45
Fig. 2: CHIMBU enemy/ally) groups, or to a concentration of marriages
with a smaller number of traditional allies (or fluctuat-
ing enemy/ally groups again). Propinquity is a factor
outside groups in all cases, but it does not by itself determine the
intermarriage
patterns. It is alliance relationships which do this.
The Chimbu, Kuma, and Hageners (and the Mendi of
flctatn m/atrible l
The/Hagener (g 5)oe intermarrnage b m Fig. 4: KUMA
the Kuma patternfcom 4n reis gous furh r a

traditional enemy tribes

warfare; no intermarriage

exogamous unit,
territories mingled tantermediary friups\dy
within tribe some inormarriage

th Southern Highlands) beloaothter c aatse

erfare i butafolowed
close commonbrely compensation no

unit 1I

\ fluctuating enemy/ally

mtraditlonally friou:
the Mae-Enga andote Strmfianetotefomr
The Hageners (-g. 5) show a pattern broadly similar
to that for the Chimbu, but with some modificationsm fluctat enemyially
Among warfare;noc
teMendiaffies ares
o oliatryexhag
the Kuma pattern (fg. 4) is modified further by a stress ensatips
on clan exclusiveness, balanced, however, by a prefer- a igt ocutiae hismothrs lad an ic
ence for close intermarriage unith traditionally allied
clans; the Mae-Enga (fig. 6) show a simlar stress on clan Fig. 5 HAGEN rli

Fig. 3: GAHUKU the Southern Highlands) belong to the latter categor

the Mae-Enga and the Siane to the former.
Among the Mendi affines are obligatory exchange
partners. They also provide refuge in warfare.
allied tribes enemy tribes
Maternal ties seem even more significant. A man has
a right to cultivate his mother's land, and since
ntermarrfare
Fig. 5: HAGEN
ex close i commonreligiousfe stimalp\ nce o
/ nter- inter-\
ra ocallistrd ional
iniarriagl e ha Id initiaon bmarriaget major enemy group
low intermarriage

/ m~~~inor enemies/allies\
lookIat thes patterns moe lous / / w~ithin and between tribe
descent unit / / ~~~close intermarriage \ \

Thee is at localised in e t

exogamous

dispersa of marriages amongeem(llor fnol u unit

\ \ ~~~allies in warfare against / /

exclusiveness, this tiliie balanced by the imnportance
\ \of
~~major enemies; ally//
individual exchange relations between affines. Let us
Iook at thiese pantter-ns more closely pa yments md

46

This content downloaded from 164.41.4.26 on Wed, 05 Feb 2020 21:16:07 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Fig. 6: MAE-ENGA Reay 1959: 35-6). Whether they actually restrict the
incorporation of outsiders more seems, however,
uncertain.
What, then, of alliance relations among the Mae-
enemy clans
dispersed intermarriage Enga? Since inter-group alliances are not strong and
intermarriage is largely with enemy groups, our

/ / =\ \~phrtr
friendly grou, hely caose i extermarriage t c
hypothesis would lead us to expect that the Mae show
strong concern with group boundaries. Comparing
h co osnfestivai ' the Mae with the Siane, we find that they show a
similar stress on matrilateral payments for children.
The father should pay his wife's brother for the naming
aeogamous a m and first hair-cutting of his child. The hair is part of
aacalisgdidescent s l the child's 'maternally-derived body' (Meggitt 1965:
holdsingtiation I 167), hence the mother's brother should be indemnified
for its removal. Flesh derives from the mother, spirit
from the father, and the 'flesh and vitality', according
to Meggitt, 'are exposed to injury by a dead agnate.
although this istdeally no warfare, but ( The ghost either eats the victim's agnatically acquired
6 rule often broken a i spirit so that his body dies, or it directly harms that
body'. The close maternal kin should be compensated
for this (p. 176). The payments help also to maintain
into theschem owarfare also e
exchange relations M claims over children. Thus a man may continue to
make payments for the children of his divorced
are similarlye xpct tonbes exhnepates
ex-wife who are co-resident with her, in hope that
marriage takes place only between neighbouring and they will later return to him.
friendly groups, he can usually exercise this claim. If the payments thus reveal an antithesis between
Where men go as refugees to clans omber trathat of paternal and maternal contributions to the 'person'
their father 54 per cent. choose their mother's clan, and a concern to indemnify maternal kin, they never-
and most of the other links used are matrilateral or theless do not show the same concern with the
affinal (Ryan 1959: 266). Again, such links do not expulsion of maternal blood as we found among the
seem to be masked in genealogies. In Hagen affines Siane. Such individual matrilateral ties as result from
are similarly expected to be exchange partners, links of maternal blood are important for positive
although this is not absolutely obligatory (Strathern exchange relations among the Mae (as in Hagen) and
1966a). Payments to maternal kin are incsorpth ated hence they are not played down. Mae ritual stresses
into the scheme of reciprocal moka exchanges. instead the sexual uncleanliness and dangerousness of
women as wives. It is on these as incomers into the
Generalised 'sister's son' tieswith a group are import-
clan, rather than on the maternal links which lead
ant as a charter for exchange relations. Matrifilial ties
are also important in determining patterns of non- outside it, that Mae disapproval focuses. Thus the
agnatic ansi nd sister's son members are listed same concern with 'boundaries' seems to take different
forms in the Mae and Siane cases: in the latter case it
as formally the equals of patrifilial members (Strathern
1966b) all this despite desceht dogmas relating to fixes on the expulsion of maternal spirit in the form of
clh and tribes which are quite clearly patrilineal in blood; in the former maternal blood is taken as given,
character. but spirit, which survives death, comes only from the
The Kuma in some respects carry the stress on paternal ancestors.
lateral alliance relations even further. Brothers-in- At a person's death among the Mae elaborate
law and whole intermarrying clans are said to become exchanges take place between his paternal clansmen
'like brothers'. There is a strong stress on ties with and
the his maternal kin. Meggitt's account of these re-
maternal clan, and it is an easy matter for the Kuma veals the violent touch which the maternal kin display.
to attach themselves to affines or maternal kin, pro- They march to the dance ground of the deceased's clan,
vided their own agnates will let them go and there is break
a fences, trample gardens, and tear down thatch
big-man to welcome them in their new clan. However, (Meggitt 1965: 195). At a later stage, those who
it is the brother-in-law tie rather than that between expect to share in an indemnity to maternal kin
brother and sister that the Kuma emphasise, and this 'assemble daily on a mountain ridge and sing loudly
is connected with their stress on male superiority and of their right to receive payment' (p. 206). Such
their marriage system, in which women are objects behaviour
of seems clearly to be an expression of the
exchange. With the stress on male superiority goes latent hostility and rivalry between intermarrying
also an emphasis on the clan as an isolate and a focus clans among the Mae. It contrasts with the ideal
for solidarity. The Kuma appear to play down the interpersonal relations between affines and with the
mother's brother, which are expected to be har-
monious.

47

This content downloaded from 164.41.4.26 on Wed, 05 Feb 2020 21:16:07 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Meggitt has not described the Enga exchange
system exhaustively so far, but he has made it clear
(e.g. 1965; 1967) that affines are valuable exchange
partners, and hence 'affinal connexions should be
harmonious and enduring' (1965: 163). But he also
suggests that the attitude to affines is awkwardly
ambivalent, because, although as individuals they are
exchange partners, as clansmen they are potential
military enemies (1964: 224). Presumably the ambi-
valence is partly overcome by exchanging with affines
only at times of peace and by avoiding encounters
with them in warfare; but the relationship is still
affected by the structure of group relations into which
it is set.
With maternal kin the relationship is closer. The
maternal uncle and nephew would not kill each other
in warfare, and the uncle would recover the nephew's
body for burial if he were killed elsewhere in the fight-
ing line. They could even refuse to take part in a
battle against each other's clan, and threaten to defend
each other's house against their own clansmen; they
visit and help each other at work, and they lend garden
land and farm out pigs to each other (Meggitt 1965:
216). Their close, friendly relationship is thus quite
different from the aggressive behaviour exhibited by
the maternal kin as a group at funeral prestations.
This difference between group and individual attitudes
explains further the attitude of the Mae to the in-
corporation of non-agnates.
The Mae mother's-brother/sister's son relationship
is substantially the same as that reported for a number
of other Highlands societies. The mother's brother
has a duty to help his sister's sons with garden land if
they come to him as refugees or need more claims than
they can obtain from their patrilineage. While this
seems to be a standard claim which the sister's sons
have, it can be exercised only if group circumstances
are favourable. The clansmen of the mother's brother
exercise surveillance over land grants. Declining clans
actively recruit sisters' sons, as does an individual old
man who lacks sons of his own. Big-men take in
affines and kin as extra followers, and are allowed to
do so because of their value to the clan and because it
is difficult to challenge them. These, then, are the
contingencies on which the kinship claims of sisters'
sons depend for their successful exercise. Again, they
are contingencies which operate in other Highlands
societies also. What seems to mark the Enga off is
extreme group wariness about land shortage and group
suspicion of co-resident sisters' sons as marginal
persons of doubtful loyalty (Meggitt 1965: 35).
Finally, another factor is involved in the complex of
Enga attitudes to non-agnates. Around each marriage
a web of exchange relations between the patrilineages
and sub-clans of the husband and wife is gradually
built up. Marriages are dispersed, both by marriage
rules and by choice, and each single marriage carries
importance in the structure of exchange relations
(Meggitt 1965: 157-9). The result is that both jural
divorce and de facto separation are discouraged.
48
This content downloaded from 164.41.4.26 on Wed, 05 Feb 2020 21:16:07 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Rarely, then, do women return as divorcees with their
children to their own natal groups. The Kuma seem
to carry this discouragement of divorce even further
(Reay 1967: 15-16), for the relationship between
Kuma brothers-in-law is very close, and the removal
of a woman from her husband would also disturb the
balance of marriage exchanges between clans (Reay
1959: 57-67). In both the Mae and the Kuma cases,
then, this lack of freedom of women to obtain a
divorce must be a factor narrowing the incidence of
'non-agnation'. The Hageners, by contrast, neither
disperse their marriages as much as the Mae nor
exchange women on so rigid a calculus as the Kuma
(Strathern & Strathern in press); and they are more
willing to take in separated or divorced sisters, with
their children, into their clan groups.
I have cited the Mae-Enga material fairly extensively
because it shows up a point which is true for all the
Highlands societies. Interpersonal kin and affinal
relationships are not simply a precipitate of political
relations between groups, although they are always
affected by these (cf. Brown 1964 on the Chimbu); and
the incorporation of persons into clan groups depends
on both interpersonal and group attitudes. I shall
briefly review the evidence on this.
For the Gahuku Gama, who marry their traditional
allies, there is a competitive touch to the relationship
between affines, with 'a good deal of ambivalence
under the cloak of formal respect and friendship'
(Read 1965: 74). Brothers-in-law expect deference
when they come to see their sisters (p. 75). The
tension, however, is greater when affines come from
a traditionally hostile group, as Read's case-history of
Gumae shows. The affinal relationship thus resembles
its counterpart among the Siane, despite the different
intermarriage patterns of the Siane (cf. Salisbury 1956;
1962: 60, 89, 24). Perhaps, however, the latent
hostility and competitiveness is more marked in the
Siane case, as we would expect from their pattern of
marriage with potential enemy groups. Yet, as I have
already mentioned, the mother's brother/sister's son
relationship among the Siane is freed from this note of
hostility. The sister's son recognises his uncle as a
'protective, affectionate, gift-giving friend' (Salisbury
1962: 24), and the relationship is strengthened by
'symbolic gifts of pork at Pig Feasts' (p. 37). The
Siane stress on the expulsion of maternal blood is thus
a result of group dogmas and does not colour the
individual tie with the mother's brother.
The Chimbu (Brown 1964) marry both within the
tribe and with near tribes, as we have seen. Intra-
tribally the affinal relationship is very friendly and
results in mobile residence and mutual aid. Cross-
tribally, land-grants and residence changes are more
inhibited by the dangers of hostility from unrelated
clansmen or tribesmen of one's affines. The matri-
lateral relationship is possibly extended further than
the affinal: all the sub-clansmen of a mother's brother
would protect the sister's son if their respective clans
were fighting (Brown 1964: 354).
 The Kuma (Reay 1959) stress close intermarriage alliance relations. To the extent that rivalry is stressed,
between traditional allies and a more dispersed spread allied groups will at times appear as much opposed as
of marriages with semi-friendly groups. Brothers-in- linked to each other. On the whole, however, they
law are close friends, and this holds independently of will not stress their exclusiveness as much as do clans
the political relations between their clans. But in a system where inter-group alliances are weak and
maternal ties are again extended further than affinal transitory.
ones: a man could not fight against his mother's clan,
but would do so against that of his in-laws, and while Conclusions
he avoided harming his brother-in-law he would make What has emerged from this sally into the com-
a point of wounding the father-in-law 'so that his wife parative analysis of Highlands ethnography? The
could see the wound and realise that he and his clan most obvious conclusion is that discriminating exactly
were superior to her own relatives'. This would not between Highlands societies in terms of a single
be done of course, when one married into a tradition- hypothesis is no easy matter. The difficulties involved
ally allied clan, but even then the relationship with are both conceptual and ethnographical: either there
one's father-in-law is 'socially distant' (Reay 1959: 70). is some trap in our definitions or the facts are too
The Kuma case shows a broad concordance between complicated to fit the hypothesis. Early in the essay I
marrying into friendly groups and a friendly relation- illustrated this with the disagreement on whether High-
ship between brothers-in-law; but it also shows that lands clans can be called descent groups or not, and
brothers-in-law are friends, and son-in-law and father- argued that descent in the Highlands-as elsewhere-
in-law are in a sense 'enemies', whatever the relations 'is not one but many things' (Peters 1960: 49 on the
between their groups. The relationship with maternal Cyrenaican Bedouin). In particular, it usually takes
kin is uniformly friendly, and is reinforced by the fact the form of a stress on the unity of the clan group,
that a man looks to his mother's brother to find him a symbolised by the assertion of common descent from
bride-perhaps most regularly when the maternal an ancestor or common participation in paternal sub-
uncle is from an ally clan. We do not have much stance or spirit (cf. Salisbury 1964; Wagner 1967)
detail on the incorporation of 'outsiders' into Kuma Much more equivocally there is a stress on patrifilia-
clan groups, although Reay devotes a few pages tion as a literal mode of recruitment to clan groups-
(1959: 45-52) to the topic; but although the basis for but this is supplemented in a variety of ways: by using
taking in affines and sister's sons is there in the norms the ties of affinity and matrifiliation, by an accent on
governing interpersonal relationships, the actual common residence and participation in exchanges, by
incidence of non-agnation seems to be narrowed by the joining the following of a big-man, and so on. This
insistent claims of agnates on persons who 'stray', split between dogmas relating to group unity and
and, as I have suggested, by the discouragement of attitudes to recruitment means that the overall assess-
divorce and separation which results from the Kuma ments of the strength of patrilineality which have been
system of exchange marriages. attempted by Meggitt (1965) and Allen (1967) can
My original proposition on alliance and group hardly be maintained.
boundaries must now be modified in two ways. First, From Meggitt's argument we can salvage the
interpersonal alliance relationships, such as those that suggestion that his hypothesis may hold within the
hold between affines, are not entirely dependent on Enga cultural area itself, and possibly in other areas
inter-group relations. The extent to which such inter- also, where descent dogmas, marriage rules and
personal relationships can lead to transfers of allegiance patterns, sex relations, and the exchange system can all
between groups is, as we have seen, dependent partly be defined and held constant. To test the hypothesis in
on group attitudes; but there is enough play in most this form we would need more evidence than we have
Highlands social systems to allow for such individual at present; and the evidence we already have from two
arrangements, provided they .do not conflict too different Chimbu areas seems to cast some doubt on it.
strongly with what are seen as group interests. Never- Allen did not restrict his hypothesis to the form
theless, such transfers are clearly facilitated where 'variable x is linked with variable y' or 'variable x
marriages are largely between friendly groups. depends directly on variable y'. He argued that a set
Second, inter-group alliances may modify the con- of variables is most likely to issue in a particular kind
cern with group boundaries, but they do not altogether of initiation ritual. He included 'patrilineality' in his
abolish it. A certain concern with clan exclusiveness set, and to that extent fell foul of the same conceptual
can be maintained, as among the Kuma, even when and ethnographical problems as Meggitt. But we can
intermarriage is predominantly between friendly, test his suggestions relating to the other variables while
allied groups. In the Kuma case it seems to be holding reservations about 'strong patrilineality'. I
reinforced by the fierce emphasis on male superiority would modify his criterion of patrilineality, and would
over women, which links the Kuma both to the Enga introduce also marriage arrangements and the extent
and to the societies of the Eastern Highlands. In fact to which marriage partners are able to choose each
this emphasis, together with a stress on rivalry betweenother. Moreover, we should include the role which
political groups, appears throughout the Highlands, women are allowed to play in the exchange system and
and it is just this which complicates our evaluation of the rights of husband and wife over each other in any

49

This content downloaded from 164.41.4.26 on Wed, 05 Feb 2020 21:16:07 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 full analysis of sexual antagonism (cf. A. M. Strathern
1968). And Allen's argument that residence in
nucleated, monocarpellary villages emphasises the
separation of the sexes is surely to be capped with
Langness's (1967) point that it is warfare which has
shaped the residence patterns themselves, and also the
separation of the sexes, since it is men who are the
warriors.
In addition to Langness's insistence on the overall
importance of warfare throughout the Highlands I
argued that we must also consider variations in
patterns of political alliances between groups, and see
how these relate to intermarriage patterns, ties with
affines and maternal kin, descent dogmas, and attitudes
towards the incorporation of immigrants into clan
groups. I argued that where group alliances are
emphasised and allies intermarry closely we might
expect to find that the concern with group boundaries
is lowered, and that where they are transitory and
marriages are more dispersed among potentially hostile
groups, it is higher.
The conclusion, however, is by no means a simple
confirmation of the hypothesis. In the first place,
how do we measure a 'concern with group boundaries'?
I suggested that it shows in attitudes towards the in-
corporation of outsiders, in dogmas relating to the
expulsion of maternal blood, and in interpersonal kin
and affinal relations-I shall take these again in turn.
First, we cannot simply say that where concern with
boundaries is high there is resistance to the incorpora-
tion of immigrants. In the terms of my hypothesis the
Bena show a strong concern with boundaries, but they
readily accept immigrants. Rather is it the case that
such immigrants are rapidly incorporated into the
kinship structure of the clan, as indeed are the in-
marrying wives among the Bena (and the Siane also).
Where group alliances and extra-clan interpersonal ties
are given more formal weight, as among the Chimbu,
the Hageners, probably the Mendi, and-with reserva-
tions-the Kuma, immigrants are also accepted, but
their acceptance is not so insistently masked by
fictional agnation. The reason why the Enga dis-
courage non-agnates does seem to be their fear of land
shortage, but the extent to which this is a motive by
which other Highlands peoples are influenced is a
matter for doubt. We do not as yet have a formula to
explain in terms of a simple correlation the compara-
tive rates of immigrant absorption; in fact, in some
cases, we do not have data full enough to make the
comparisons.
Second, it does seem to hold for the Eastern High-
lands societies that there is a stress on the expulsion of
maternal blood, as well as on the dangers of pollution
by menstrual blood. These are also the societies in
which, as Allen pointed out, male initiation is stressed;
and in them sexual antagonism seems marked, too.
where stable political allies also intermarry closely, the
Unfortunately, statistics on patterns of intermarriage stage is at least set for the open recognition of the
are not uniformly available; but we do know that the induction of affines and sister's sons into clan groups;
Gahuku, for example, intermarry mostly with tradi-
tional allies and yet still show all the emphases which
50
This content downloaded from 164.41.4.26 on Wed, 05 Feb 2020 21:16:07 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
the other societies culturally related to them display.
One conclusion might be that the relationship with
allies is strongly tinged with rivalry among the Gahuku;
another that the complex of attitudes to sex in the
Eastern Highlands is not simply the outcome of
political structure. It remains possible to argue, with
Langness (1967), that the fundamental emphasis on
warfare is the same among the Gahuku as among the
Bena and others, and that this leads to separation
between the sexes independently of whether marriage is
with enemy groups or not. But it is not only separa-
tion we are dealing with, there is inter-sexual antag-
onism also; and closer analyses of the conflicts of
interest between men and women are needed to explain
this than I have been able to include here.
Third, a stress on the expulsion of maternal blood
is not a necessary concomitant of a concern with
group boundaries, as the Mae-Enga case shows. This
stress may be shown in different ways, and much
depends on specific dogmas relating to conception and
growth. The Mae hold that the mortal flesh and
blood come wholly from the mother and hence cannot
be 'expelled'. Instead, the maternal kin must through-
out a person's lifetime be compensated for harm done
to the body by malicious agnatic ghosts. (This con-
tinual compensation can itself be seen both as a
boundary-maintaining mechanism for the agnatic
group and as an admission that in a sense a person
belongs to his maternal as much as to his agnatic clan;
cf. Wagner 1967.) The Enga also throw a heavy stress
on the dangerous qualities of menstrual blood: it is
women in the role of wives that they seem to fear the
most, despite their jural control over them. Whereas
the Kuma fear their wives because they are women,
potentially opposed to the will of men, the Mae fear
theirs, it seems, because they are the sisters of their
clan's potential enemies.
Fourth, interpersonal kin and affinal relations are
not simply a precipitate of marrying one's enemies or
otherwise. The Siane, Kuma, Chimbu, Hageners, and
Mae-Enga, despite their very different patterns of
alliance and intermarriage, have a very similar defini-
tion of the immediate mother's brother/sister's son
relationship, although they show differing group
attitudes to maternal kin and 'maternal blood'. Affinal
relationships, also, are partly independent of the
political system. In comparing Highlands societies,
then, we must for some purposes separate kinship
structure quite clearly from political structure.
Finally, alliance relations are themselves not always
easy to define or measure. As we would expect from
Radcliffe-Brown's discussion, they can include ele-
ments of rivalry which make inter-group opposition as
prominent as inter-group friendship. Nevertheless,
and competition means that groups are often keen to
recruit new members. Whether there is such open
 recognition, and what the actual incidence of such
inCduction is, will depend on further factors.
l'o achieve a more detailed analysis of co-variation
than I have been able to give here we need to have not
only directly comparable empirical material on such
topics as divorce, incorporation of non-agnates, inter-
marriage and alliance patterns, population pressure,
descent dogmas, and so on, but also, just as impor-
tantly, we need to select a number of variables from
which to build simplified models of individual systems
which can help us through the initial stages of making
hypotheses. One conclusion of this paper is that
simple correlations of variable x with variable y are
unlikely to hold.
Even if, in the analysis of single systems, we can
usually suggest how patterns of warfare, intermarriage,
alliances, initiation rituals, sex relations, and descent
dogmas are inter-related, it remains much more
difficult to achieve formulae which will enable us to
make predictions from one system to another.

NOTE

I am most grateful to Marilyn Strathern for discussion and
criticism of this paper, and I have benefited from previous dis-
cussions with J. A. Bames, Paula Brown, M. J. Meggitt,
P. M. Kaberry, and Marie Reay; also from correspondence with
Roy Wagner. I have not discussed Wagner's book, The curse
of souw, in this article, as his complex argument would require
lengthy separate treatment. I have summarised some views on
it in a review due to appear in the School of Oriental and African
Studies Bulletin.

REFERENCES

ALLEN, M. R. 1967. JMale cults and secret initiations in Mela-

LEPERVANCHE, MARIE DE 1967. Descent, residence and leader-
nesia. Melbourne: University Press. ship in the New Guinea Highlands. 1. Oceania 38,
BARNES, J. A. 1962. African models in the New Guinea High- 134-58.
lands. Man 62, 5-9. - 1968. Descent, residence and leadership in the New Guinea
- 1967. Agnation among the Enga: a review article. Oceania Highlands. 2. Oceania 38, 159-89.
38, 33-43. LEWIS, I. M. 1965. Problems in the comparative study of
BERNDT, R. M. 1962. Excess and restraint: social control among unilineal descent. In The relevance of models for social
a New Guinea mountain people. Chicago: University Press. anthropology (ed.) M. Banton (Ass. social Anthrop.
1964. Warfare in the New Guinea Highlands. Am. Monogr. 1). London: Tavistock Publications.
Anthrop. 66, 183-203. MCARTHuR, MARGARET 1967. Analysis of the genealogy of a
BOHANNAN, L. 1952. A genealogical charter. Africa 32, Mae-Enga clan. Oceania 37, 282-5.
301-15.
MEGGITT, M. J. 1964. Male-female relationships in the New
BROOKFIELD, H. C. & P. BROWN 1963. Struggle for land.
Guinea Highlands. Am. Anthrop. 66, 604-24.
Oxford: University Press for the Australian National
- 1965. The lineage system of the Mae-Enga of New Guinea.
University.
Edinburgh: Oliver & Boyd.
BROWN, P. 1962. Non-agnates among the patrilineal Chimbu.
1967. The pattern of leadership among the Mae-Enga of
J. Polynes. Soc. 71, 57-69.
New Guinea. Anthrop. Forum 2, 20-35.
- 1964. Enemies and affines. Ethnology 3, 335-56.
- 1967. The Chimbu political system. Anthrop. Forum 2, NEWMAN, P. L. 1965. Knowing the Gururumba. New York:
36-52. Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
BULMER, R. N. H. 1966. Review of Meggitt, Lineage system of PETERS, EMRYs L. 1960. The proliferation of segments in the
the Mae Enga. Man (N.S.) 1, 127-9. lineage of the Bedouin of Cyrenaica. J. R. anthrop. Inst.
COOK, E. A. n.d. Kinship as a personnel integrative mechanism90, 29-53.
in Manga society. Unpublished paper. RADCLIFFE-BROWN, A. R. 1952. Structure and function in
CRIPER, C. 1967. The politics of exchange: a study of cere- primitive society. London: Cohen & West.
monial exchange amongst the Chimbu. Thesis, Australian RAPPAPORT, R. A. 1968. Pigs for the ancestors: ritual in the
National University. ecology of a New Guinea people. New Haven, London:
DOUGLAS, M. 1966. Purity and danger: an analysis of concepts Yale University Press.
of pollution and taboo. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
READ, K. E. 1959. Leadership and consensus in a New Guinea
EVANS-PRITCHARD, E. E. 1937. Witchcraft, oracles and magic
society. Am. Anthrop. 61, 425-36.
among the Azande. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
1965. The high valley. New York: Charles Scribner's
- 1940. The Nuer. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Sons.
FIRTH, RAYMOND 1963. Bilateral descent groups: an operational
viewpoint. In Studies in kinship and marriage, presentedREAY,
to MARIE 1959. The Kuma: freedom and conformity in the
Brenda Z. Seligman (ed.) I. Schapera (Occ. Pap. R. anthrop. New Guinea Highlands. Melbourne: University Press for
Inst. 16). London: Royal Anthropological Institute. the Australian National University.
FORTES, M. 1959. Descent, filiation and affinity. Man 59, - 1967. Structural co-variants of land shortage among patri-
193-7, 206-12. lineal peopies. Anthrop. Forum 2, 4-19.
GLASSE, R. N. 1959. The Huli descent system: a preliminary ROYAL ANTHROPOLOGICAL INSTITUTE 1951. Notes and queries
account. Oceania 29, 171-84. in anthropology 6th edn, revised. London: Routledge &
- 1962. The cognatic descent system of the Huli of Papua. Kegan Paul.
Thesis, Australian National University. RYAN, D'ARCY 1959. Clan formation in the Menidi valley.
- 1968. The Huli of Papua. Paris: Mouton. Oceania 29, 257-89.
KABERRY, PHYLLIS M. 1967. The plasticity of New Guinea
SAHLINS, M. D. 1963. Review of Social structure in south-east
kinship. In Social organisation: essays presented to Ray-
Asia (ed.) G. P. Murdock. J. Polynes. Soc. 72, 39-50.
mond Firth (ed.) M. Freedman. London: Frank Cass.
- 1965. On the ideology and composition of descent groups.
LANGNESS, L. L. 1964. Some problems in the conceptualisation
Man 65, 104-7.
of Highlands social structure. Am. Anthrop. 66, 162-82.
- 1967. Sexual antagonism in the New Guinea Highlands: a SALISBURY, R. F. 1956. Unilineal descent groups in the New
Bena Bena example. Oceania 37, 161-77. Guinea Highlands. Man 56, 2-7.
LAWRENCE, PETER 1967. Land tenure among the Garia. In - 1962. From stone to steel. Melbourne: Cambridge
Studies in New Guinea land tenure (by) I. Hogbin & P. Law- University Press.
rence. Sydney: University Press. - 1964. New Guinea Highland models and descent theory.
LEACH, E. R. 1961. Rethinking anthropology. London: Man 64, 168-71.
Athlone Press. - 1965. The Siane of the Eastern Highlands. In Gods,
- 1962. On certain unconsidered aspects of double descent ghosts and nmen in Melanesia (eds) P. Lawrence & M. J.
systems. Man 62, 130-4. Meggitt. Melbourne: Oxford University Press.

51

This content downloaded from 164.41.4.26 on Wed, 05 Feb 2020 21:16:07 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
SCHEFFLER, H. W. 1964. Descent concepts and descent groups:
the Maori case. J. Polynes. Soc. 73, 126-33.
- 1965. Choiseul Island social structure. Berkeley, Los
Angeles: University of California Press.
- 1966. Ancestor worship in anthropology; or, observations
on descent and descent groups. Curr. Anthrop. 7, 541-8.
SCHNEIDER, D. 1965. Some muddles in the models. In The
relevance of models for social anthropology (ed.) M. Banton
(Ass. social Anthrop. Monogr. 1). London: Tavistock
Publications.
STRATHERN, A. J. 1965. Descent and group-structure among the
Mbowamb. Fellowship dissertation, Trinity College,
Cambridge.
- 1966a. Ceremonial exchange in the Mount Hagen area.
Thesis, University of Cainbridge.
52
This content downloaded from 164.41.4.26 on Wed, 05 Feb 2020 21:16:07 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
1966b. Despots and directors in the New Guinea High-
lands. Man (N.S.) 1, 356-67.
- & A. M. STRATHERN in press. Marriage anid marriage
patterns in Mount Hagen. In Pigs, pearlshells and women
(eds) M. J. Meggitt & R. N. Glasse. Chicago: Prentice-
Hall.
STRATHERN, A. M. 1968. Women's status in the Mount Hagen
area. Thesis, University of Cambridge.
WAGNER, RoY 1967. The curse of souw: principles of Daribi
clan definition and alliance in New Guinea. Chicago:
University Press.
WURM, S. A. 1964. Australian New Guinea Highlands lan-
guages and the distribution of their typological features.
Am. Anthrop. 66, 77-97.