Australian Kinship

Lyle Steadm= an

Department = of Anthropology

Arizona State University

Human Behav= ior and Evolution Society Meeting

University of Utah<= /st1:PlaceName>

June 1999

&nbs= p; There is a strange custom in Australia, among the Aborigines. A man a= nd his wife give their five-year-old daughter to a young boy to be the little boy’s future mother-in-law. From that moment on, throughout their lives, the boy will call the g= irl “mother-in-law,” will show her extreme respect, will never be familiar with her, and will send her gifts of meat when he’s successf= ul in hunting. Thirty or forty y= ears later, when they have grown up, the boy’s “mother-in-law” will send him her daughters as wives as they reach fifteen years of age or so. In my talk today I shall = use selection theory to offer an explanation of this strange custom, which may, until recently, have been extremely widespread, perhaps universal (e.g., Go= odale, Shapiro, Radcliffe-Brown, 1953) in the 500 or so tribes that covered Australia. Keep in mind that Australian Abori= gines offer probably the best example available of what our hunter and gatherer ancestors were like, for they occupy an entire continent. They were not marginalized agriculturalists. No matter h= ow complex or confusing their customs, it is worth our while to try to underst= and their functions.

&nbs= p; This custom of promising each of one’s daughters as a mother-in-law is a result of another custom. Throughout Au= stralia marriage is anticipated between particular kinds of cousins, sometimes firs= t, sometimes second, sometimes more distant, but always on the same generation, never between adjacent generations. From an early age, every individual knows who of his kin are marriageable and who are not. And this anticipated marriage between particular kinds of cousins powerfully influences their kin terms. T= he particular marriage expected influences which kinsmen will be seen as poten= tial affines (in-laws)—not just potential spouses and their siblings, but = also the spouses’ parents and their siblings. For example, in some tribes males = are expected to marry a daughter of their mother’s brother. In this case, one’s mother&#= 8217;s brothers will be seen as potential fathers-in-law (and one’s father’s sisters seen as potential mothers-in-law). Sometimes there are no affinal ter= ms whatever, only kin terms are used. The particular marriage anticipated, of course, will be consistent with the mother-in-law bestowal described above, so that the daughters of the boy’s bestowed mother-in-law will always be the right kind of cousin = for the boy to marry. So, what can explain why cousins are expected and encouraged to marry, and why young daughters are given as mothers-in-law?&nbs= p; Even complete knowledge of the various psychological mechanisms invo= lved in mate choice explain very little about who has mated with whom among Aborigines for the past fifty thousand years. Hence, “customs” or “traditions” must be dealt with to explain who has reproduced, = and therefore what has been selected for during recent human evolution.

&nbs= p; The antiquity of Australian traditions offers a tantalizing key to understanding not only kinship in general but its crucial relationship to the structure of society. For more than a cent= ury, anthropologists have struggled to account for why Australian kin terms are extended to distant kin and affines the way they are. Levi-Strauss’s fame, for exa= mple, is based on his unsuccessful attempt to solve the riddle of Australian kins= hip (see Schleffler 1978). But no= one has used an approach based on selection.

&nbs= p; One widely recognized, but rarely emphasized, fact of Australian societies is an extremely high level of violence and killing between males competing direct= ly or indirectly for mates (see Rose, and Hart et al). But the relationship between this violence and their kinship and marriage systems has never been recognized.<= span style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> Like tribal societies generally, Australians are polygynous, and we here can understand why the violence and killing between males could be related to their high level of polygyny. Old males tend to get most of the = young wives, requiring younger adult males either to wait for many years to get a reproductive wife or to risk their life committing adultery with nubile wiv= es of an old male. This is not b= ecause males control females. After = their first marriage, which ends when their old husband dies, females can choose their subsequent husbands, staying within the proper kinship category. And their first chosen husbands will tend to be the most desirable: old and influential.

Kinship

&nbs= p; Before we go any further, let us review some important facts about kinship. First, all tribal societies are ba= sed on kinship. Second, the more clo= se kin one has, the better are one’s chances for staying alive, marrying wel= l, and leaving descendants. Thir= d, all societies have various marriage prohibitions. By prohibiting marriage between cl= ose kin, individuals are forced to marry more distant kin. The major effect of such marriage prohibitions is to increase the number of identifiable kin of offspring. For example, if a brother and a si= ster were to marry, their offspring would have very few kinsmen, for they would = lose their aunt and uncle (who are now their parents), and they would have only = two grandparents and their siblings and descendants. If first cousins were to marry, be= cause they share many kinsmen, their offspring would acquire fewer kin than if th= eir parents were not closely related. Marrying someone from another clan, rather than your own, gives your offspring two clans of kinsmen instead of one. If a Swede married a Congolese, th= eir offspring would acquire at birth all the kin of their Swedish parent and a completely different set of kin through their Congolese parent. The further away parents and ances= tors can force the marriages of their descendants, the more identifiable kin their subsequent descendants will have. And the more likely that they, in = turn, will leave descendants, and pass on, among other things, the traditional marriage prohibitions.

&nbs= p; But the fly in this ointment is that the further away one must look for a spous= e, the harder it is to get one. = As a Hewa of Papua New Guinea responded when I asked why he did not marry a cert= ain female: “Why would her father give her to me?” What he meant was that she was so distant a kinsman that her father would feel no obligation to help him in a= ny way. Kinship obligations, encouraged by ancestors, always include helping kin leave descendants. And one necessary condition for a = man to leave descendants is to get one or more mates. Closer kin are everywhere favored = over more distant kin. In societie= s with a fairly high level of polygyny, traditional kinship obligations always inc= lude helping your closer, younger male kin get wives, and sometimes this means giving them a daughter, or even a daughter-in-law.

&nbs= p; So this is the dilemma: the further away your descendants marry, the more kin = of your descendants are likely to have. Byt the greater the polygyny, the more difficult it is to get wives,= and the stronger will be the obligations to help your closer and younger male k= in get wives. Australian Aborigi= nes have been extremely isolated from other peoples. Their traditions, therefore, are a result of fine tuning by selection, through millennia. Traditions that most help leave descendants tend to replace those that help less. The most widespread traditions are= those that have been the most successful. Young boys are promised wives by rather close kinsmen through the gi= ft of a mother-in-law, especially if they behave themselves and stay away from other men’s wives. When= they are about thirty they will tend to get an old wife who has gone through a number of husbands, and who is likely to be incapable of reproducing. It won’t be before they are = forty or even fifty that they will get the young, nubile wives promised to them at birth through mother-in-law bestowal. But then, if they outlive their brothers, they will also acquire the= ir brother’s wives.

&nbs= p; Through traditional marriage prohibitions, ancestors try to push marriage further a= way, but their descendants will often marry just beyond the prohibition because their closer kin are more likely to favor them and give them their daughter= s as wives. In Australia, marriage just beyond the prohibition has become not only an expectation but= a kinship obligation. Males exp= ect to receive daughters from certain relatives, and parents are obliged to give t= heir daughters to certain male kin. This has led parents in many, if not all Australian tribes to bestow each daught= er, when young, as a “mother-in-law” to a particular kind of male kinsman who eventually will marry the daughters of their daughter.

&nbs= p; There is another problem in societies with high polygyny. As mentioned above, the more kin o= ne has the more support and influence one tends to have. But males, even male kinsmen, can = be fierce competitors for wives. And such competition can destroy kinship cooperation and support. One universal solution in Australia is to encourage marriage in one’s own generation and discourage it between adjacent generations. This si= gnificantly reduces the chances of male kin in the above generation, including fathers = and uncles, from taking females from their sons and nephews. The result of this prohibition is increased cooperation between kinsmen in adjacent generations. Cooperation between male kinsmen i= s the basis of their individual influence in the world.

&nbs= p; The marriage usually anticipated in Australia is not to your mother’s brother’s daughter, who, as a first cou= sin, is usually said to be too close. The most widespread anticipated marriage is with a second cousin, in particular your mother’s mother’s brother’s daughter̵= 7;s daughter (MMBDD, see Figure 1). This is cited almost everywhere as the proper marriage, the “p= roper road to follow,” and thus represents the best solution to the problems described above: to push marriage as far away as possible and, at the same time, help your male kin get wives on their generation.

&nbs= p; From birth onwards you and your kinsmen know which kin can be your wives, and therefore who their mothers are, your potential mothers-in-law, and [furthermore], the parents who produce your potential mothers-in-law.

Sections and Subsections

&nbs= p; There is a related kinship phenomenon in Australia that has attracted = much anthropological attention: the so-called section and subsection systems, wh= ich are unique in the world. No discussion of Australian kinship can ignore them. Here I’ll sketch a possible explanation for this unusual phenomenon which not only is consistent with t= he kinship arrangements described above but, I believe, promotes them.

&nbs= p; Every tribe in Australia uses both kin terms and ancestral (often called clan or estate) names to identify kinsmen.[1] In some tribes they also have moie= ty names (from the French word meaning “half”), which are a pair of ancestral or descent names that serve to identify an entire tribe (see Figu= re 2). Because marriage usually = is prohibited within one’s own moiety, everyone has a father of one moie= ty and a mother of the other. Consequently, by these two names everyone in the tribe is identified= as a co-descendant. But in addit= ion to these methods of identifying kinsmen, two-thirds of all Australian tribes h= ave what usually are called section= or subsection names (Elkin, The Australian Aborigines, 1956).<= span style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> And it is these two systems, more = than anything that have brought anthropologists studying Australian kinship to t= heir knees.

&nbs= p; Both section and subsection names identify individuals with a line of ancestors = and hence, like ancestral and descent names in general (such as a clan name, or= our “family” names in English), function to identify distant kin who share ancestors. Like moiety names, they identify everyone in the tribe. And li= ke moiety names they are used to distinguish marriageable from non-marriageable kin. But unlike moiety names,= they distinguish adjacent generations (which of course is consistent with marria= ge being prohibited or discouraged between kin on adjacent generations).

&nbs= p; Both section and subsection names seem to be determined matrilineally (Elkin, Radcliffe-Brown).[2] That is, your name is determined b= y, but is not the same as, your mother’s name, which in turn was determined = by, but [is] not the same as, her mother’s name and so on.

&nbs= p; A section system has four names, = two in each moiety (see Figure 3). I= f I am an X, my mother will be a Y, and her mother an X, and so on. Thus, Y’s together with X= 217;s are a matrilineal moiety, but one that distinguishes adjacent generations.<= span style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> And like a moiety, X’s and Y’s are not expected to marry one another. My father (as well as my spouses) = should come from the other moiety, also identified by two names transmitted matrilineally, which also serve to distinguish adjacent generations.

Thus, the four name section= system is used to identify distant co-descendants and who is marriageable and who = is not (see Figure 4). If I am a= n X and my mother a Y, my father should be in another section—P let’= ;s say. The proper spouse for a = Y is a P, and the proper spouse for me, an X, is in the fourth section—Q let’s say. Y’s sh= ould marry P’s and X’s should marry Q’s.

Much has been written on the section and subsection systems, and much is controversial. The problem is this: while everyon= e in the tribe is identified by one of four names, in each family, three of the = four section names are represented: = the father is identified by one, the mother by another and the children still b= y a third. The same is true of the subsection system: although it has eight names in all, three are found in e= ach small family. Obviously, these names do not identify any kind of residential group.

The obvious question is why= do they have them [section and subsection systems]? What function does such a system serve? How has a naming syste= m that distinguishes adjacent generations within a moiety helped to leave descenda= nts more than simply having a single name for the moiety? Single named moieties are found in= many parts of the world, but nowhere outside of = Australia are sections found.= How has the section system, unique= in the world, been selected for? My answer is simple.

The section system has two functions. First, like a moie= ty name, it serves to identify distant kin.&n= bsp; Second, by distinguishing adjacent generations it facilitates, for b= oth sexes, the identification of whom one can and cannot marry.

But what of the subsection system? All Australian researchers agree t= hat the subsection system, with eight names, must be related, somehow in a simp= le way, to the section system, with four names. Like the section names they are determined apparently by the mother’s name and identify, [and] like t= he section system, there are two matrilineal moieties. But they distinguish twice as many generations in each moiety—not just two, but four (see Figure 5). In the subsection system, four nam= es distinguish a fixed order of generations in one moiety, and four in the oth= er, each name repeating every four generations, rather than two, as in the sect= ion system. That is, if one is a = D, then one’s mother is a C, her mother a B, and her mother an A. And finally, the mother of an A is= again a D. But the obvious question= is, what does this complexity add to the section system, which already distinguishes adjacent generations?

In many Australian tribes m= arriage between first cousins is prohibited, and this is true even in many tribes w= ith a four name section system. Bec= ause the individuals in one’s own moiety and in adjacent generations in the opposite moiety are prohibited in marriage, the anticipated marriage in tri= bes using a section system (indeed in most tribes), is with a cousin (called by anthropologists a “cross cousin”) in one’s own generation= in the opposite moiety (the cousins in one’s own moiety—who are not marriageable—are called “parallel cousins”) (see Figure 4= ). But, while all individuals in that “spot” in the opposite moiety on one’s own generation will have the same section name and be called by the same kin terms, the actual first cousins are often prohibited. The closest acceptable marriage is with a second “cross” cousin, who will be classified by the same section name.

I propose that the eight na= me subsection system functions to distinguish, for everyone, their “first cross cousin,” who should not be married, from the second cross cousin, who is not only the closest marriageable kin but the one anticipated to be the marriage partner (see Figure X). This is, for a male, his mother= 217;s mother’s brother’s daughter’s daughter (MMBDD). In the section system, these two k= inds of cross cousins are classified by the same section name. Because of the marriage prohibitio= n on first cousin marriage, individuals in many tribes have come to distinguish,= not only by kin terms but also by subsection names, their first cross cousin, w= ho is not marriageable, from their second cross cousin, who is marriageable. The parents of your second cross cousins, therefore, who are your potential mothers-and fathers-in-law, are = in different subsections than the parents of your first cross cousins. A child of an actual mother’s brother or a father’s sister, whom one should not marry, is in one subsection, while a child of one’s mother’s mother’s brother’s daughter (MMBD [that is a MMBDD for example]), whom a male = not only can marry, but is expected to marry, is in another subsection, his “marriageable” subsection.&nbs= p; In the four name section system, the mother’s brother’s daughter is in the same category as the MMBDD. In the eight name subsection syste= m, for everyone, they are explicitly distinguished. My argument would be disproven if an eight name subs= ection system were found that encouraged or anticipated marriage with the first cr= oss cousin (MBD). Here (in Figure= 6) every male is marrying his MMBDD, who is not at the same time his MBD. (Show this with male “H̶= 1; and then with male “G”.)

In summary, I have argued t= hat the reason why individuals have the “four” name subsection, as oppo= sed to simply a moiety system, is to distinguish kinsmen in adjacent generation= s in order to promote marriages on the same generation. The prohibition of marriage between individuals on adjacent generations is aimed at reducing conflict over women between male kinsmen on adjacent generations. The “eight” name subse= ction system is aimed at distinguishing first cross cousins, where such marriage = is prohibited, from second cross cousins, whose marriage is anticipated. The subsection system always distinguishes these two types of cousins.

Actual genealogical distanc= e is always important, but after the “arranged” marriages end, femal= es may marry somewhat more distant kin in the proper genealogical spot. Nevertheless, they should not marr= y in adjacent generations nor in their own moiety. Both the kin terms and the section= and subsection names facilitate the identification of acceptable and non-accept= able spouses, for both sexes. And = by marrying acceptable spouses, individuals have tended to maximize the fitnes= s of their descendants. Mother-in-= law bestowal, by anticipating the proper marriage, years in advance, has had the beneficial effect of reducing competition for females. The section and subsection systems= do the same, by reducing competition between male kin on adjacent generations.=

[Addendum]

The question arises: why no= t simply use only kin terms to distinguish these various relatives, and not section = and subsection names, as do one-third of the tribes in Australia? My answer: given the complicated marriage arrangements that stretch over several generations, sections and subsections facilitate the identification of all these various kin, not only for marriage, but for all the anticipated in-law relationships that result.=

Thus, the two conditions necessary for the emergence of the= section system are:

1. Exogamous moieties

2. Prohibition of marriage between kinsmen on adjacent generations

The additional condition re= quired for the development of the subsection system:

3. Prohibition of marriage with true cross cousins, leading to the anticipation of marriage with the second cross cousin; for a male, his MMBDD

Figure 1 Marriage of a male with his mother’s mother’s brother’s daughter’s daughter (MMBDD)

Legend:

= Female = &nb= sp; = &nb= sp; = &nb= sp; Parent

= Male = &nb= sp; = &nb= sp; = &nb= sp; Chil= d

= ;

= = = &nb= sp; Siblings = &nb= sp; = &nb= sp; = = Marr= iage

Figure 2&= nbsp; Matrilineal Moieties

(A marries B)

= &nb= sp; A = &nb= sp; = B

&nb= sp; = &nb= sp; = &nb= sp; = &nb= sp; = &nb= sp;

Figure 3 Matrilineal Section System

= Moiety 1 = &nb= sp; = Moiety 2

= = = = = = = &= nbsp; &nbs= p; x &= nbsp; &nbs= p; &= nbsp; q

<= /p>

= &nbs= p; &= nbsp; y &= nbsp; &nbs= p; &= nbsp; &nbs= p; p

<= /p>

= = = = = = = = &nbs= p; &= nbsp; x= = = &nb= sp; q

= ; &n= bsp; y= &nb= sp; = &nb= sp; p

Section Marriages:

x =3D q (x marries q)

y =3D p (y marries p)

Figure X Section vs Subsection Marri= age

= = = = = = = = = = = = Section = &nb= sp; = Subsection

<= /p>

= = = = = = &nbs= p; &= nbsp; &nbs= p;

<= /p>

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = &nbs= p; &= nbsp;

<= /p>

&nbs= p; EGO MBD = &nb= sp; EGO<= /span> MBD<= /span> MMBD= D

= &nb= sp; & MMBDD = &nb= sp; = [EGO marries MMBD]

Figure 4 Section System Marriages (four nam= es)

Section Marriages (see chart below):

= x =3D q (x marries q)<= o:p>

= y =3D p (y marries p)<= o:p>

Ideal chart showing matrilineal determination of sections = &nb= sp; = and every male marrying his MBD:

Figure 5 Matrilineal Subsection System

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Moiety 1 = &nb= sp; Moiety 2

Subsection marriages:= a =3D g (a marries g)

= &nb= sp; = b =3D f

= &nb= sp; = c =3D e

= &nb= sp; = d =3D h

Figure 6 Subsection Marriages

Subsection marriages: a =3D g (a marries g)

= = &nb= sp; = b =3D f

= &nb= sp; = &nb= sp; c =3D e

= &nb= sp; = &nb= sp; d =3D h

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = &= nbsp; Ideal chart showing matrilineal determination of subsections and every male marry= ing his mother’s mother’s brother’s daughter’s daughter, who is not at the same time his mother’s brother’s daughter:

Note: In regard to mother-in-law bestowal, the couple = b =3D f would give their young daughter, g, as a mother-in-law to male d, who would marry her daughters, h. The t= op couple a =3D g gives their daughter, b, as mother-in-law to male e.

[More addendum]

&nbs= p; Often, if not always, the kin terms in an eight name subsection system distinguish= ed first cross cousins, who are not marriageable, from second cross cousins, w= ho are (Figure 6 is an attempt to show this).= If the kin terms did not distinguish the two kinds of cross cousins = my propositions would not be disproven, for in the four name section system, w= hen the first cross cousin (MBD) is prohibited, they still may not distinguish = the second cross cousin (MMBDD), who is marriageable by a separate kin term.

Like clan names, moiety nam= es allow the identification of very distant kinsmen. A moiety, meaning “half̶= 1; in French, like a clan, is an ancestral (or “descent,” or “family”) name that allows individuals to identify as co-descendants half the people in their tribe, and sometimes, as in Australia, well beyond their tribe. Most, if = not all moieties prohibit marriage between individuals identified by the same moiety name; that is, moieties are exogamous. Because of exogamy, one’s mo= ther and father must be of different moieties.&= nbsp; Thus, everyone in the tribe is identified as one’s co-descenda= nts, either through your father’s moiety name or your mother’s moiety (one of which will be your own).

Like moiety names in genera= l, section and subsection names allow individuals to identify very distant kinsmen. But unlike moieties, sections distinguish alternate, or adjacent generations in a moiety that is= not usually otherwise named. Thus= , a pair of section names, alternate down the generations. In all, or almost all tribes, one’s section name is determined by the section name of one’s mother. That is, a XXXX alway= s has a mother that is a YYYY, who in turn has a mother who is XXXX and so on. A subsection, on the other hand, i= s one of four names of a moiety, that also cycles, repeating every fourth generat= ion.

The two conditions necessar= y for the emergence of the section system:

= 1. Exogamous (matrilineal) moieties

= 2. Prohibition of marriage between individuals in adjacent generations, which has the effe= ct of preventing competition between “mother’s-brothers” and their “sister’s sons”

These two conditions lead t= o the anticipation of marriage with a cross cousin. The section system, by distinguish= ing generations and matri-moieties, identifies explicitly who is and who is not marriageable.

The additional condition, l= eading to the subsection system:

= 3. Prohibition of marriage with the true cross cousins.&n= bsp; This prohibition does occur in some tribes using the section system. The purpose or functi= on may be, as argued elsewhere, to create more close kinsmen for offspring. The subsection system serves to di= stinguish first cross cousins, who are prohibited to marry, from second cross cousins, who are marriageable. It also distinguishes all the other relevant categories in regard to marriage.

Wherever marriage tends to = occur between identifiable kin, as in Australia, there is a tension. The furth= er away a man marries, the more close kin his offspring will acquire, and with more kin an increased likelihood of success. The problem is that the further aw= ay one seeks a wife, the more difficult it is to get one, for such distant kin are= not willing to favor a distant kin over closer kin—their strongest obligations are to their closest kin. Thus, traditional marriage prohibitions try to push marriage further away, but the descendants will tend to marry just beyond the prohibition because their closer kin are more likely to favor them and give them their daughters as wives. In Australia, marriage just beyond the prohibitions has become not only an expectation bu= t a kinship obligation. Males exp= ect to receive daughters from certain relatives and parents are obliged to give th= eir daughters to certain male kin. This had led parents in many, if not all, tribes to bestow each daughter, when young, as a “mother-in-law” to a particular kind of male kinsman who eventually will marry the daughters of their daughter.

Discussion of kinship usual= ly is loaded with jargon and is extremely boring. This is due not only to the surpri= sing complexity of kinship relationships, but also because most discussions are based on a false assumption that kinship is a group phenomenon. In fact, every kinship relationshi= p is between individuals who are linked by birth.

Nor do they simply identify marriage classes, for they are used also to identify distant co-descendants, including those in other tribes (Radcliffe-Brown). One important fact pointed out by several ethnographers, is that in perhaps all tribes using either the secti= on or subsection system, one’s name is determined by the name of oneR= 17;s mother, not one’s father (see Scheffler). The name of one’s mother was determined by the name of her mother, and so on. They are matrilineal ancestral names. While the above is not without controversy, it is supported by a broad range of data. The strongest evidence that the na= mes are “matrilineally determined” is that virtually everywhere, wh= en a wrong marriage occurs—that is, when individuals from the wrong sectio= ns marry—the father is said to be “thrown away,” that is, his own section [or] subsection is irrelevant in determining the section name of his children.

In fact, the section system= , with four names, identifies two, apparently matrilineal, moieties. Two of the names distinguish adjac= ent generations in one moiety, while the other two distinguish adjacent generat= ions in the other moiety. If I am = an X, my mother will be a Y, and her mother, again an X, and so on. Thus, X and Y are section names th= at serve to identify a moiety and, at the same time, adjacent generations with= in that moiety.

As indicated above, moiety = names serve to identify all members of a tribe, and often beyond, as one’s = own co-descendants. Indeed everyo= ne an Australian Aborigine encounters in life is assumed to be some kind of kinsm= an, although it may take some time to work out the particular relationship. Thus, all marriage is between kins= men, but not just any kin. Close k= in are prohibited, and the exogamous moiety system prohibits marriage with someone= in one’s own moiety. Exoga= mous moieties not only ensure that all offspring will identify everyone in the t= ribe as a co-descendant, but also that males in different moieties should not compete with one another for wives.

Polygyny implies that males= , no matter how many wives they already have, are always in the market for more. As all Darwinists can imagine, the main competition in Australian societies is over females—= ;to keep the ones you have and to get more.&nb= sp; And there is much violence and killing resulting from this competiti= on. Indeed, such competition between m= ales threatens the basis of their society, which is fundamentally cooperation between, especially male, kinsmen. While competition between male kinsmen in different exogamous moieti= es is avoided, competition between males in one’s own moiety is not. Every Australian society, apparent= ly, prohibits marriage between individuals in adjacent generations. The important effect of this prohi= bition is that it reduces the likelihood of competition between related males in adjacent generations.

Senior, high status, influe= ntial males in the generation above your own should not take wives from your generation. Nor should you ta= ke them from the generation below (or above) your own. Thus, by this prohibition, competi= tion between male kinsmen for females is dramatically reduced. And it is section names that serve= to distinguish explicitly not only one’s own moiety from the other moiety, but also kinsmen in adjacent generations. Thus, wives should be sought not only in the opposite moiety, but al= so only in one’s own generation (or possibly in the second generation ab= ove or below one’s own—in the generation of your grandparents or grandchildren—which are identified also by your section name). A male must not compete with those= whom he calls “father” or “mother’s brother,” which covers all males in the generation above, nor with those called “son” or “sister’s son,” which covers all mal= es in the generation below.

In tribes that have a secti= on subsystem, they never distinguish MBD from MMBDD. Or, in tribes that have a subsecti= on system, they always have separate kin terms for these two kinds of kinsmen.=