Marriage

MARRIAGE).

Other functions of the dual organization vary according to the community in which it is found. In the daily life of the people, the members of the two moieties are very commonly separated at games, feasts, contests, etc., and may even inhabit different parts of the settlement. Of ten there is also a striking development of reciprocal services between the two moieties, so that they assist each other, e.g., at the initiation and burial of their members, at the building of houses and in various other economic enterprises, while communal ceremonies are usually so arranged that one moiety is conceived as giving them to the other. The symmetry of struc ture characteristic of the dual organization here serves as the in dispensable basis of reciprocal obligations (cf. B. Malinowski, Crime and Custom in Savage Society, chap. iv.). Thus among the Iroquois of N. America, the two moieties are always represented at the great annual festivals and at the ceremonial meetings of the medicine or religious societies, and in the ceremonial Long House they are spatially separated, the speakers on each side address ing the other in the course of the ceremony ; games, such as ball and lacrosse, are also played between the two moieties; they have the obligation of burying each other's members; and they also exercise political functions, each moiety, e.g., having the right of veto over the choice of the other in the election of chiefs (cf. L. H. Morgan, The League of the Iroquois).

Again, there is sometimes to be found a theoretical dichotomy of the universe whereby all natural phenomena are divided be tween the two moieties; and, especially where the moieties are sub divided into clans, this system of classification is frequently accompanied by totemism (q.v.). Thus the Wotjobaluk of S.E. Australia have two moieties called Krokitch and Gamutch, each of which is sub-divided into a number of clans. Associated with each moiety in rather arbitrary fashion is a long list of animals, plants, etc. ; in fact, the native concept is that everything in the world is either Krokitch or Gamutch. This classification is carried still further, so that objects regarded as belonging say to Krokitch are sub-divided among the clans composing that moiety. More over, suppose a man is a member of a certain clan in the Krokitch moiety to which the white cockatoo also belongs, then the white cockatoo is his totem, and he has a series of special observances to fulfil towards it, while he also has a general ritual relation towards all the other objects belonging to his moiety (cf. A. W. Howitt, Native Tribes of S.E. Australia) .

Frequently also the dual division of the community seems to stimulate a tendency to emphasize contrasts between the two moieties. One moiety, e.g., is believed to be of local origin, the other to have come from elsewhere ; or they are supposed to have different physical and mental characters; or their mythologies and traditions differ; or the one is regarded as superior to the other; or their names are antithetical, e.g., the widespread Australian names "Eaglehawk" (white) and "Crow" (black).

Sometimes, as in Melanesia, the moieties are apparently even hostile, and each regards the other with dislike and suspicion. All such distinctions bring out the fundamental significance of the dual organization in the structure of the community.

Theories of Origin.

The dual organization is ascribed some times to a process of fission whereby a single group came to be divided into two moieties. On the other hand, Rivers (The History of Melanesian Society, chap. xxxviii.) , emphasizing the ideas of contrast between the two moieties as found in Melanesia, believed that the dual organization there developed as the result of the in termixture of two distinct peoples, one of which migrated into the region and set up a social system in co-operation with the com munities it found there. This idea is carried still further, by not restricting the term "dual organization" to the moiety system, to which alone it applies, but extending it to dualism of every f orm economic, political, religious, mythological, etc.—regarded as hav ing originated in Egypt as the result of a process whereby a duality of ruling groups became completely superposed on a duality of a territorial nature (Upper and Lower Egypt), and as having spread with these characteristics to all parts of the world where it is now found (cf. W . J. Perry, The Children of the Sun.) This theory however, suffers from defects which render it unacceptable.

All theories which attempt to find a single origin for the dual organization are inadequate. This mode of social structure cannot be regarded either as the invention of one people or as the result of one particular social process. It is a recurring institution that has arisen many times in different places—now by the reduction of clans, now by the fusion of two inter-marrying groups, and again by other processes. No one theory of origin can be laid down as conclusive : each occurrence must receive special investi gation. (I. S.) following general works on primitive society should be consulted: Sir J. G. Frazer, Totemism and Exogamy (1910), useful as a collection of data; R. H. Lowie, Primitive Society (1921, bibl.) ; A. A. Goldenweiser, Early Civilization (192 2) ; W. H. R. Rivers, Social Organization (1924) .