Marriage Rules in Bengal

Author(s): Morton Klass

Source: American Anthropologist, New Series, Vol. 68, No. 4 (Aug., 1966), pp. 951-970
Published by: Blackwell Publishing on behalf of the American Anthropological Association
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/670409
Accessed: 29/10/2010 03:19

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless
you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you
may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.

Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=black.

Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed
page of such transmission.

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.

Blackwell Publishing and American Anthropological Association are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize,
preserve and extend access to American Anthropologist.

http://www.jstor.org
MarriageRulesin Bengal'
MORTON KLASS
BarnardCollege,ColumbiaUniversity
This is an essayin structuralanalysis:an examinationof therulesgoverningprescription
and permittingchoicein theinitiationof marriagein WestBengalvillages.Fourstructural
featuresemergeas significantin theBengalvariantof marriagein India: arrangedmarriage,
kin-groupexogamy/endogamy, intensificationof ties, and extensionof ties. Thesefeatures
(variouslymodified)appearto characterize marriagein otherpartsof India, and it is sug-
gestedherethattheapproachutilizedfor Bengalmay providegreaterinsightfor thestudyof
Indian marriagepatternsthanthemoretraditionaldichotomy: NorthIndia characterized by
villageexogamy,SouthIndia characterized by preferentialclose-kinmarriage.

I
IN MUCH of West Bengal marriage rules differ significantly from those usu-
ally reported for North India. Particularly striking is the widespread
absence of any rule of village (or local) exogamy.2The larger part of this paper,
therefore, is given over to the description and analysis of the circumstances
attending the initiation of a marriage in the part of West Bengal with which I
am familiar. In the final section, current approaches to marriage rules and to
related aspects of social structure for all of India are evaluated in the light of
the data from West Bengal.
Throughout the paper, the analytic approach is structural, although the
meanings assigned to "social structure" and "structural analysis" reflect a
shift from older usage. In the traditional view, "social structure" has been
limited to the observable network of social relations between members of a
given society (Radcliffe-Brown 1952:190 ff.) Many scholars, however, have
found this limitation irksome and unnecessary. As Sahlins has written, "It is
not useful to enjoin concern principally on the set of social relations and to con-
sider the rest of human action in their light. We have to deal with a largersys-
tem of which social relations are but one component" (1963:49, his italics).
This shift in concern may, as Sahlins suggests (47), reflect a greater interest
in "culture" as against "social system," but it may also reflect increasing aware-
ness of the systemic nature of all aspects of culture. In the culture of a given
society, in other words, there is not only a "social system" to be found, but a
"value system" and an "economic system" and so on. From this perspective,
the culture is the totality of interrelated systems. This concern for the relations
between elements in a system is, of course, at the heart of any form of structural
analysis (cf. Levi-Strauss 1953, 1963), whether it be of kinship, of land utiliza-
tion (Howard 1963), or of language (see, for example, Greenberg 1957) and
those who seek the "grammar" or the "folk taxonomy" of a culture are obvi-
ously working within this wider framework of structural analysis (Goodenough
1951, 1957; Frake 1962).
To speak of grammar is to speak of rules, and it is with rules that I am pri-
marily concerned. The term is used here to indicate a statement or principle of
951
952 American Anthropologist [68, 1966
usage or behavior characteristic of a particular culture. A "rule" is in fact a
structural regularity, the definition Kluckhohn provided for "pattern" in his
effort to distinguish his usage from "pattern as configuration" (1941). In this
paper "rule" will be used rather than "pattern" (although my debt to Kluck-
hohn will be obvious) because "rule" is in more common use in structural anal-
ysis today. Besides, for Kluckhohn, "pattern" appears to have encompassed
more than "rule"; he designates as pattern-parts ("more concrete patterns
within a broader, more general pattern") such statements as: "(1) a girl should
be a virgin at her first marriage; (2) a young man's first wife should be a virgin"
(1941:123). It would seem simpler to refer to these as "rules," and to reserve
"pattern" for the broader regularities.
The term "rule" itself encompasses a number of subcategories. Radcliffe-
Brown, for example, has pointed to two very different types of "rule" (1952:
198), one recognized and stated as such by the members of a society, and one
that is derived by the observer from their behavior, but unsuspected by them.
A rule, further, may be a prescription or it may be a statement of preference
-and these terms, in their turn, require some analysis. For Needham:
The term"preferential" impliesthat thereis choice,andin the contextof marriagethat there
is a choicebetweena numberof persons(distinguishedgenealogically,for example,or cate-
gorically)who may all be married.In this situationtheremay be a preferencefor one or more
personswithinthe rangeof possibilities.... The term"prescriptive," on the otherhand,has
quite differentconnotations.In this case the emphasisis on the very lack of choice: the
categoryor type of personto be marriedis preciselydetermined,and this marriageis obliga-
tory [1960:8-9].
Needham also notes, later in his argument, "Perhaps I should stress that the
characterizations 'prescriptive' and 'non-prescriptive' refer only to unilateral
cross-cousin marriage" (57). The distinction between "preference" and "pre-
scription" is so useful, however, that one is reluctant to see the terms perma-
nently restricted to the presence or absence of a single marriage rule; in this
paper they are extended to all marriage rules.
There is no reason, indeed, why these terms could not be utilized in examin-
ing the rules of other institutions and cultural rubrics, whenever what is under
consideration is the limitation of choice-the possibility of alternative. This is
the larger category, obviously, within which we must place "prescription." In
Needham's words, "prescription" reflects "the very lack of choice"; thus it is
part of a continuum ranging from "free choice" (if such exists) through "re-
stricted choice" to "lack of choice." One may ask, further, whether in a situa-
tion where no choice is permittedany other alternatives are known to the mem-
bers of the society. Presumably, if they are known, they are met with institu-
tionalized negative sanctions-but, even so, to what extent and with what
regularity do people make such choices? Again, as Needham uses the term
"preferential," it would appear to subsume both circumstances where one
choice is generally preferred and circumstances where no choice is given prece-
dence (or, at least, where there is widespread disagreement as to precedence).
The possibility of choice, the number of acceptable alternatives, the responses
to known but unacceptable alternatives-all these must be taken into consider-
ation, particularly if one is interested in directions of culture change, both past
KLASS] Marriage Rules in Bengal 953
and future. Such very basic terms as alternative,choice,preference,and prescrip-
tion would therefore appear to be in need of additional clarification.
The following distinctions, by no means intended to be exhaustive, will be
seen to underlie the description and analysis presented in this paper:
(1) Alternatives: Those responses theoretically possible in a given situation; in
effect, the set of responses for that situation known for all human societies.
Any given cultural inventory may contain only a limited number of alterna-
tives, and the rules of that society will determine whether option is present
and whether certain alternatives involve negative sanctions.
(2) Choices:Within a specific culture, those alternatives available where option
is recognized.
(a) Free choice: Where option exists and no pattern of preference can be de-
tected in either real or ideal behavior.
(b) Preferentialchoice: Where option exists, but-all things being equal-one
alternative would invariably be preferred; or where it is possible to chart
the order of preference, although any choice would be acceptable and none
would be met with negative sanction. (Note. Statistical analysis can be
very illuminating here: does everyone make the preferred choice? does no
one?)
(3) Prescript: Where only one response is socially acceptable, and all others re-
ceive negative sanctions. Thus, from the perspective of the culture "alterna-
tives" do not exist, and the term "alternative" can only be used analytically
or comparatively. Prescripts may be negative (Thou shalt not .. .) or posi-
tive (Thou must ...).
(a) Closedprescript: Where the culture recognizes only one response as possi-
ble or conceivable. No sanctions are reported for other responses, since the
existence, or at least the occurrence, of such responses is denied.
(b) Open prescript: Where other responses are known but pronounced un-
acceptable. If and when they are made, specific negative sanctions are im-
posed. (Note. Again, statistical analysis can be very illuminating, particu-
larly for studies of culture change or conflict. It might occur, for example,
that the single acceptable response is made in a minority of cases.)
A number of questions obviously arising from the foregoing will be seen re-
flected in the discussion to come. Where a culture recognizes choice, what fac-
tors are reflected in the stated preferences, and what in the real choices made?
One may seek such factors, among other places, in the value system, in culture
contact, in innovation, and in the total ecological setting. Again, does choice
ever become prescript-or prescript choice--and under what conditions?
II
Throughout India, villages are never marital isolates. In Bengal, as almost
everywhere else in the subcontinent, each villager is a member of a named,
marriage-restricting group; it is larger than the village and usually represents
954 American Anthropologist [68, 1966
only a part of the village's population. In the literature, in English, this named
group may be referred to variously as "caste," "subcaste," or even "tribe" (in
the case of Santals, Oraons, Kols, and others, when such groups are resident in
villages). The Bengal villager uses the word jat (or jati) in referring to such a
group.3 These "jat" names-bramh6n, SutrOdh6r(carpenter), bauri (plough-
man), etc.4--do not necessarily reflect corporate groups in Bengal; they do not
even necessarily imply commensality. In every jat there is a specifiable set of
families, within an area delimited by the villages in which they live, that is the
"effective jat" for the villager. Each such group, often referred to as a 9Omaj,
sets and enforces the marriage rules of its member families. For any given vil-
lage, the geographical distribution of the marriage circle of any jat is-in princi-
ple, at least-independent of that of any other jat. Thus, in the villages studied,
Brahmans married as far afield as Santal Parganas in Bihar, carpenters con-
tracted marriages in Bankura District to the south, and ploughmen married as
far to the east as Durgapur. While marriage rules vary from jat to jat, certain
rules are shared by all jats in a given village, and a distinct area profile
emerges.
In Bengal, marriage is not properly the concern of the unmarried boy or
girl. Among other reasons, they are conceptually children-even in the city,
and when college graduates-and are considered to have little interest in the
matter and less competence. Arranged marriage remains the pattern in city
as well as village, and attempts to determine the desires of either child are
rare and at best both circuitous and perfunctory.
In the village, the initiative lies with the male head of the girl's household,
referred to hereafter as her "guardian." This may be her father, father's
brother, father's father, or even her elder brother. The guardian of a village
girl feels a sense of urgency or social pressure (and if he doesn't, it will be
communicated to him by his wife), for there is a widespread belief that a girl
should be married before her first menstruation or as soon thereafter as pos-
sible. Among the lowest jats in the social hierarchy, marriage frequently takes
place when the girl is nine years old; even among those village families most
affected by Europe-derived standards, the girl is rarely permitted to reach her
late teens.
The initiation of a marriage, therefore, usually begins with a discussion
among the adult members of the girl's household: can anyone think of a
suitable boy? Perhaps, at a recent wedding or Sraddho(obsequies, commemora-
tive feast), someone in the family noted a possible prospective bridegroom,
for at such times many of the families of the s6maj assemble in one village.
If the guardian is personally acquainted with members of the boy's family,
procedure is of course simplified. If not, the guardian will visit one of his
own relatives in the village of the boy's family for further information. If,
in that village, he has no kinsman he trusts, the guardian will inquire among
his near relations to ascertain whether any of them has a trustworthy kinsman
there. And if, in the boy's village, there is no kinsman-or kinsman of a kins-
man-then the boy's name is very likely to be dropped from consideration.
KLASS] Marriage Rules in Bengal 955
If no one in the immediate household knows of any likely prospect, the
guardian consults other kinsmen, in his own village or out of it. Such consul-
tations may reflect particularly warm relationships; they may simply be with
those kinsmen whose opinions he values. They may even be purely fortuitous,
e.g., a sister and her husband happen to drop in for a visit, the guardian meets
his mother's brother in the weekly market, etc. In the normal course of events,
a questing guardian is likely to consult with one or more of the following:

(1) Within his village: Kinsmen in related households (usually descendants of

a common patrilineal ancestor); other members of his jat (likely to be
related by some marriage tie, unless one of the two families is newly arrived
in the village). Such men, particularly if patrilineally related, are likely to
direct him to villages where they have closer ties than he does, and may
even join actively in the search. Relatives and "jat-brothers" with whom
one is currently feuding are, of course, not consulted.

(2) Outside the village: Men to whom the guardian is related by a marriage
bond, or through a female. If the guardian is a young man these might
include: MoBr, FaSiHu, MoMoBrSo, WiFa. If the guardian is of middle
age, those he visits might include: SiHu, MoBrSo, FaSiSo, WiBr, WiSiHu,
E1SiHu. An elderly guardian might turn to: SiHu, E1DaHu, and-if one is
on good terms-SoWiFa and DaHuFa. A nonpatrilineally related kinsman
may in fact be able to produce an eligible boy from his own, or some very
close, household. Among Bauris, a favored consultant is one's bOndhu-bhai,
blood-brother from the days when both were children herding cattle on
the wasteland between villages.
One of these men is likely to suggest a boy, usually of his own village or
that of a near kinsman, whose family is known to him. Quite often the boy is
closely related to the man who suggests him. If the guardian of the girl ex-
presses interest, he who proposes the boy becomes the go-between or marriage-
broker (gh6t6k): he will visit the boy's family to see whether it is at all in-
terested in a match. Normally, the family of a boy begins seriously to consider
his marriage only after it has first been approached. If it expresses interest,
the gh6t6k arranges a formal meeting between the two guardians-usually
personally introducing the girl's guardian into the home of the boy. Over tea
or some other beverage, the question of dowry is raised and negotiations begin.
The following case, taken from my field notes, is offered as an example. It
illustrates the perception the outsider may have of a Bengal village marriage
as well as the actual chain of action-initiation among those directly involved.
The progression from start to finish is typical for the area.
(1) A boy of village P_ was married to a girl of village N_. Both villages
were in Burdwan District, some 30 miles apart. The families were land-
owning Brahmans of the Kanauj iOrgOrS6maj. When first interviewed,
guardians of both children denied any kinship ties-then agreed that a
relationship, distant and very obscure, probably existed. Both men were
956 American Anthropologist [68, 1966
vague about how the marriage had come about; each said simply that he
had "heard" of a promising match, and that was the way it had begun.

Thus, we might diagram the marriage:

Village P Village N

(Note: Dotted line indicates distant kinship tie.)

(2) Events were actually initiated in village N by a man we shall call

"Hari," a landowner and head of a household including his deceased
younger brother's wife and daughter. The girl, in her mid-teens, was now
of marriageable age, and Hari, her guardian, cast about for a suitable
match. Among the men he consulted were the husbands of his two daugh-
ters. These were both men of village K_, though otherwise unrelated to
each other. Each son-in-law consulted with his own relatives in order to
be of service to the father-in-law. One DaHu approached his FaBrSo, also
a man of village K_, but now of a separate household. This FaBrSo
("Koilas") remembered that his wife's sister, married to a man of village
P__, had an eligible son. Koila' journeyed to P_, saw his WiSiHu, and
after suitable negotiations the marriage took place, with the two men of
village K-_ (the DaHu and Koilai) serving as go-betweens.
Thus, we may diagram the movement of action in the arrangement of
this marriage:

Hari -

S2. 3. Koila- 4.
Village N Village
K-_
Village P
(Note: Here the dotted line indicates direction of activity in the initiation
of the marriage.)
The second diagram indicates the peripheral roles of the boy and girl as
well as the importance of the guardian, who is not necessarily even the father.
And since the first steps in the initiation of a marriage are usually taken by
the guardian of the girl, his views, considerations, and concerns are obviously
KLASS] Marriage Rules in Bengal 957
crucial. Next in importance are the views of the boy's guardian. Again, the
importance of the go-between is pointed up in the case discussed; social con-
siderations, and perhaps economic and political ones, of village K_ have ob-
viously played an important part in setting up this marriage. Yet, once ar-
rangements have been completed, go-between and go-between's village slip
into the background; village K_ is missing in the first diagram.
Finally, the fact that the line of action is through ties of blood and marriage
must be emphasized. This is not invariable, but it is likely to be the case in
the overwhelming majority of marriages; and the reasons are to be found
in the considerations underlying all village social relationships in Bengal, as
well as in those having specifically to do with marriage.
In the first place, the Bengal villager, in arranging a marriage for his child,
must have absolute confidence in the go-between. But confidence implies a
positive evaluation, and villagers say that they cannot evaluate, they cannot
deal with, the category "good man" outside the contexts of village and kin
group. Within these contexts the villager has obligations to others, and these
others have obligations to him; it is solely on the basis of how a man fulfills
his obligations to you that he can be evaluated. With all others, men who are
both nonkin and of alien village, one lacks bonds of reciprocal obligation and
therefore any basis for trust. It is not that the stranger will invariably cheat
the villager, or indeed that a kinsman would not; it is simply that a kinsman
has obligations, and therefore potentially there are ways of applying sanctions
should he fail to carry them out. With the stranger there is neither mutual
obligation nor the possibility of meaningful sanction.
In the second place, for the Bengal villager marriage and kinship are very
much intertwined. It is true that he does not normally consider his spouse as
kin, but it is equally true that he recognizes that nonkin-those absolutely
unrelated-can never be spouses. Clarification of this point requires an ex-
amination of the areas of prescription and choice in Bengal marriage.

1. The area of prescription

For the villager, marriage with kin is governed by negative and positive
prescripts. The rules are not always as explicit as even the villager would like,
and consultations with elders are often necessary. Even when there is uncer-
tainty or disagreement about the rule, this is taken to mean there is a need
for clarification, not that a choice exists.
(a) Stipulated common descent-patrilateral: Every Bengal villager (with
the exception of members of certain lowest-ranking jats) has a gotro identifi-
cation within the jat. The nature of "gotra" varies considerably from place
to place and from jat to jat in India. For most of the jats in the Bengal villages
studied, a gotr6 appears to be a named patrisib in which the man inherits
membership from his father. All men of that gotr6 are considered to be de-
scendants of a common founding ancestor.5 In this part of Bengal, the subject
of gotr6 identification is raised at only one time: when the family of a prospec-
tive bridegroom is suggested to the guardian of the girl. If both families are
958 American Anthropologist [68, 1966
of the same gotr6, negotiations cease immediately, for marriage is out of the
question.
But what of the mother'sgotr6? In Bengal, the woman is not considered to
have a gotr6 identification, or at most she is said to be of her father's gotr6
before marriage and of her husband's after that. When questioned, some men
said they would not consider as eligible a boy of the same gotr6 as their wife's
father. Still others claimed they would exclude the gotr6 of their own mother's
father. Some expressed uncertainty, saying that on such matters they would
have to consult with old men or religious advisors. Interestingly, not all men
could name their MoFa's or WiFa's gotr6-but men always knew their
SoWiFa's gotr6. What emerges is that the two men considering the marriage
of their children make certain they-that is, the two guardians-are not of
the same gotr6; the question of collateral gotr6s is rarely if ever raised, and
perhaps only as an additional excuse for breaking off negotiations. This nega-
tive prescription-gotr6 exogamy--is never violated, men claim, and they
are at a loss to imagine what sanctions would be imposed if it were.
In most jats it is said that gotr6s were once ranked and that it was necessary
for the boy's family to be of higher (or at least of equal) gotr6 rank. If this
was ever the case, it had to be long ago, for today in every jat cases may be
cited of men of low-ranking gotr6s married to women derived from higher-
ranked gotr6s, and some of the couples are quite elderly. The rule is now an
abrogated prescript, and few men can accurately rank the gotr6s of their own
jat. Again, if the rule is ever raised, it may be only as an additional excuse for
termination of negotiations.
(b) Demonstratedcommondescent-multilateral: In the villages studied all
men, of every jat, would agree that a boy and girl known to have a common
ancestor should not be married to each other. The different jats, however,
disagree as to the number of generations to be checked, and even within a jat
there may be disagreement on this. In practice, if common descent is not al-
ready known, it is assumed not to exist. True, under the rule of gotr6 exogamy,
those patrilineally related would in any case have been excluded, but the two
prescriptions are conceptually distinct for the villager: that is, apart from
gotr6 considerations, children of siblings must not marry, nor grandchildren
of siblings. And beyond that? If the tie were demonstrated, men say, they
would break off negotiations, but after two or three generations and particu-
larly when some of the links are female, the ties are obscured and forgotten.
Bauris, in fact, check only on whether the boy and girl have a grandparent in
common (thus, only marriage of children of siblings is avoided) and say that
"no one can remember" more distant connections. Still, for the Bengal vil-
lager of whatever jat, this negative prescript is, in principle, quite clear; if
common descent is known for the prospective couple, marriage would not be
considered. If a violation ever occurred, everyone would understand that it
was a result of ignorance, and most likely it would be ignored.
(c) Stipulated common descent-nonpatrilateral: The prescription, in this
KLASS] Marriage Rules in Bengal 959
case a positive one, is quite unambiguous: a child's spouse must be chosen from
within one's own $6maj or, at most, from a neighboring s6maj with whose
members interdining is permitted and ceremonial invitations are exchanged.
All members of the same jat are assumed ultimately to be related to each
other, descendants of the same founding ancestors or of a small group of con-
tinously intermarrying ancestors who have always shared a common set of
beliefs and practices. The villager thinks of all members of his jat as his "jat-
brothers," and a man far from home and kinsmen will automatically seek out
any "jat-brothers" in the area. Fictive kinship ties are swiftly set up, and in
the course of time may almost assume the full dimensions of real ties.6 But
although a man may feel a sense of kinship with anyone bearing his jat title,
the "jat-brothers" with whom he normally interacts are the members of his
own g6maj, and perhaps of one or two contiguous ones-for these are the peo-
ple with whom he may eat, with whom he marks the occasions of death and
marriage, and among whom he must seek a spouse for his child.
No excuse is accepted for violation of this prescript, and violations, which
are admitted by all to occur, are punished by expulsion from the s6maj. Men
of lower jats are just as adamant about marriage out of the jat, although there
are mechanisms for admitting men of higher ranked (but not equal or lower)
jats who have been expelled by their own people.
For the Bengal villager, defining kinship simply as "relationship by blood
and/or marriage" would be much too all-inclusive. The villager perceives many
gradations and varieties of kin-his immediate household, or gh6r, whether
nuclear or joint-family in composition; his close patrilineal kin, or 9.6Q3ar;his
kinsmen by marriage bonds or through women, or Jt:i6; etc.' With each cate-
gory he has obligations, and these differ sharply from category to category.
Even within the largest group-the "effective jat"-his obligations are clear
and subject to effective group sanction. Marriage must take place within this
set of kinfolk, although there are specific subsets to be excluded from considera-
tion. Beyond this set, however, are only nonkin-members of other jats-
and with them marriage is not possible. From this perspective, in fact, it has
been pointed out that the jat may even be viewed as a "bilateral endogamous
kindred" (cf. Karve 1956, 1961; Yalman 1962).

2. The area of choice

In certain matters, the Bengal villager recognizes the existence of alterna-
tives. Not only does he consider himself free to choose, but he is not disturbed
when others, even close kinsmen, make a different choice. No sanctions are
imposed here, nor would any villager expect them to be as long as choice is
made from the inventory of acceptable alternatives. In any given case, the
alternative chosen is assumed to represent a combination of personal taste or
interest, plus the interplay of all the factors in which choice is possible. One
is told that the answer to any such question as "Would you accept a dark-
complexioned girl?" "How wealthy must the family be?" "Would you con-
960 American Anthropologist [68, 1966
sider a child from a village as much as 50 miles away?" depends on the answers
to all. Within that framework, however, it is possible to determine preferences,
all things being equal.
(a) Personal attributes: It is preferred by all jats that the girl be younger
than the boy; for even the highest-ranking jats she should be no older than
her mid-teens while he may be in his late teens or early twenties. In general,
the lower the rank of the jat, the younger the girl at marriage. The fairer her
color, the more attractive she is considered. Physical attractiveness is also
measured by her appearance of health and the absence of visible infirmity.
Preferences here are roughly the same for boys. Education is desirable-the
more the better-though for girls of even highest-ranked jats this often means
little more than the ability to sign their name. For some jats, the boy should
indicate some degree of application, to school work or to employment. Girls
should be chaste, modest, and retiring. Since the girls are usually quite young,
virginity is taken for granted unless a question is raised.
The foregoing indicates preference; every villager understands, however,
that a spouse must be found for every boy and particularly for every girl,
whatever their deficiencies in appearance, health, education, or intelligence.
Given a particular situation, one strikes the best bargain one can.
(b) Family wealth and status: Members of a •6maj tend to be on about the
same social and economic level, and, all things being equal, the two families
negotiating a marriage are likely to be of approximately equal wealth and
status. If either is better off, however, it is likely to be the family of the boy,
for it is considered preferable for his family to be of higher status and/or
greater wealth.
The guardian of a girl is therefore reluctant to marry her into a poorer or
socially inferior family, but he may be forced to do it because of her lack of
physical attractiveness, say, or her increasing age. The guardian of a boy
might be willing to accept a daughter-in-law from a family of higher wealth
and status, but he is likely to be suspicious if offered one. It may be, however,
that the wealthier man has no sons and is seeking a son-in-law to inherit his
property. In such a case, the prospective groom would be likely to be a younger
son of a large family.
(c) Locality: In the area of Bengal studied, no rule exists excluding any
locality from consideration as long as it contains an otherwise acceptable fam-
ily of the appropriate jat. The girl's guardian considers himself to be at liberty
to choose a boy of his own village, of some nearby village, or of a village even
one hundred miles or more away. He notes, however, that questions of kin
ties may in fact restrict his choice of locality. In some villages, all men of the
same jat are descended from a common founding ancestor; though they may
have forgotten the exact links, still common gotr6 membership rules out the
marriage of their children. On the other hand, the farther away the boy's
village, the more likely it is that the village will contain no related family or
no one sufficiently close to the girl's guardian to be an acceptable go-between.
And, of course, beyond a given point families, though of the same jat, belong
to a S6maj "we don't know."
KLASS] Marriage Rules in Bengal 961
Even when the above questions do not arise, the choice of locality is still
not purely random or individual. Other things being equal, the girl's guardian
is reluctant to consider a village too far away: visits will be infrequent and
expensive. The wealthier the jat, therefore, the more extended the marriage
circle.8 Again, every informant insisted that, if possible, he would prefer not
to marry a child into his own village. Three reasons are commonly advanced
for this preference: (1) Land disputes are unfortunately frequent occurrences
between village families, and this makes visiting between the families awkward
if not impossible. This reason, of course, is likely to be offered by men of land-
owning jats. (2) The family of the boy, and particularly his father, receives
deference and respect from the girl's father after marriage. This is not likely
to be forthcoming from contemporaries in one's own village. Men preoccupied
with the marriage of a son are likely to offer this reason. (3) Marriage in
Bengal is almost invariably virilocal, and in her husband's home the girl is
likely to be scolded, even punished, by the older women. If her father resided
nearby and overheard, he would be troubled. If he interfered, relations be-
tween the families would be strained. Men preoccupied with the marriage of
a daughter are likely to bring this up. Nevertheless, given a desirable and
eligible candidate in one's own village, such a marriage could be arranged.
Every informant, of every jat, can provide examples, often from his own
family.
And so, while the villager corisiders himself free to choose any locality,
comparatively few marriages are contracted within the same village or between
families of very distant villages. The majority of marriages are arranged with
families of villages other than one's own, but within a radius of about five
to ten miles.
It will be seen, therefore, that while free choice is thought to exist on such
matters as personal attributes, family status, and locality, there are always
preferred choices. The actual choice made in a given situation reflects these
preferences-modified by the availability of alternative candidates and the
degree of desirability of one's own child. In other words, the preferences remain
constant, but other factors are variable. The availability of candidates may
vary from case to case; it will depend, for example, on the health of the girl
offered. Availability may vary from jat to jat; in the lower-ranked jats no
girls have any education. Again, availability of candidates may vary from
village to village; in some villages there are a number of unrelated households
of the same S6maj, while in others all such households derive from a common
ancestor. It is obvious that statistical patterns may change sharply, in varying
social, economic, and perhaps ecological circumstances, without necessarily
reflecting (at least at first) changes in the mechanical structural models, that
is, in the rules governing prescript, choice, and preference.

III
India is a complex civilization with roots as old as any in the world, dis-
tinguishable from the other centers of Old World civilization in certain impor-
962 American A nthropologist [68, 1966
tant ways but still participating through time in the Eurasian-African oikou-
mene. The anthropologist who would deal with India obviously faces a number
of difficulties, not the least of which is the very complexity of Indian culture.
It is one thing to study an Indian tribal group or a village and its region; it is
another to relate the disparate tribes and villages to one another within the
total matrix. Approaches developed by anthropologists elsewhere in the world
are not so easily applied in India; Oscar Lewis writes, "The difficulties encoun-
tered . . suggest that a typology of peasant societies for Mexico or Latin
America would hardly serve for North India" (1955:165).
For all the variability and complexity, however, pattern and regularity
have been pointed out. It has been noted, for example, that in India anthro-
pologists are dealing with an "indigenous civilization" in which the village
and local, or "little," tradition articulates with a very much related but over-
arching "great tradition" (Marriott 1955; Singer 1956). Another strategy,
somewhat analogous perhaps to the "culture area" approach, is that of M. N.
Srinivas when he points to "an important difference between north and south
Indian villages":
In extra-peninsular India, i.e., India betweenthe Himalayasand Vindhyas,a man marries
outside his village. In fact, an exogamouscirclewith a radiusof four miles may be drawn
round a man's village. ... Village exogamyis combinedwith hypergamy,i.e., village A
only receivesfromB but doesnot returnthe compliment.Oneof the effectsof villageexogamy
and hypergamyis to spatiallywidenthe rangeof ties. Theties arenotrepetitive,butextensive.
An exactly oppositeprincipleobtainsin peninsularIndia. The preferencefor marriagewith
certainnearrelatives,suchas a cross-cousinanda cross-niece(a man'seldersister'sdaughter),
has a limitingeffecton the socialspaceof the peasant.Suchrelativesoften live in the same
or nearbyvillage.The villageis not an exogamousunit. Preferencefor marriagewith certain
relativestends to multiplythe bonds one has with the same body or bodiesof people. In-
tensificationis the operativeprinciplein south India, while extensionis the principlein the
north.The significanceof this differencein otherfeaturesof sociallife has yet to be studied
[1963:12,italics his].

For all the coherence such an approach provides, and all the stimulation
to further investigation, there are certain dangers in it deriving from the
present paucity of information about the distribution of what are interpreted
as diagnostic or characteristic traits. Given this assumption that local exogamy
is characteristic of villages in North India and serves to distinguish the north
from the south, an immediate question arises: Why do we find local exogamy
in the north, but not in the south? Gould, addressing himself to this problem,
concludes at first that "strict rules" of village exogamy in the north derive
from the interrelation of three factors: "(1) caste endogamy, (2) territorial
stabilization of kin groups, and (3) gotra exogamy" (1960:487). But, as he
himself points out in a later paper, "the first two factors are equally prevalent
in both the north and the south. The third factor ... is common among the
Brahmans of both regions but not common as such to other castes in either"
(1961:297). He suggests at this point that since north and south differ "in
predominant kinship systems," this may be the explanatory factor-that vil-
lage exogamy occurs in the north because of the "desire to avoid the conflicting
KLASS] Marriage Rules in Bengal 963
claims of affinal and consanguinal kinship ties in a patrilineal kinship system"
(1961:299).
This last proposal has elicited from Berreman the information that "in the
Central Pahari area of North India in which I worked, the concept of village
exogamy is totally lacking, yet all four of the explanatory factors which Gould
finds associated with village exogamy are operative" (1962:55).
Berreman does not, however, challenge the north-south dichotomization;
he considers the absence of local exogamy in his area as "anomalous" and
suggests that it may be related to certain special aspects of marriage in Pahari
society. The Pahari landed castes permit divorce and insist upon bride-price
rather than dowry. Pahari marriages, he notes in addition, are customarily
initiated by the groom's family (57).
But the absence of local exogamy among the Pahari is not anomalous; in
the part of West Bengal described in this paper no such rule is stated, nor can
it legitimately be derived. Yet, all four of Gould's explanatory factors may be
detected, and, in addition, marriage is initiated by the bride'sfamily among all
castes, while among landed castes divorce is not permitted and dowry is the
important marriage exchange.
The approach itself would appear to be at fault; we must question the
assumption that the presence of village exogamy characterizes the North
Indian village, and its absence characterizes the South Indian village. To the
question, then what are the diagnostic or characteristicdifferences?I would reply
that we need to know more, not just about the distribution of culture traits
and structural principles, but about their variability from region to region.
Only then can we begin to draw conclusions about the interrelatedness of
elements.
In pursuance of this objective, I would note the importance of four struc-
tural elements in the manifestation of marriage-in Bengal. In my discussion
of these elements I shall also consider, somewhat tentatively, their applicabil-
ity to India beyond Bengal. The fact that only four elements are discussed
here is not intended to imply that other elements may not be present, nor is
it assumed that any single element is necessarily peculiar to India.

1. Arranged marriage
In village Bengal, arranged marriage is a positive prescription, and though
other alternatives are known they are frowned upon. The head of the girl's
household customarily initiates marriage negotiations, through an intermedi-
ary, with the head of the boy's household. Other adults, of both households
and of related ones, may be consulted, but the opinion of the boy or girl to
be married is rarely if ever sought.
For such a society, it must be apparent that an analysis of a marriage from
the perspective of the man who acquires a bride may lead to distortion: Ego
has nothing to do with his own marriage, but rather it is Ego who finds a hus-
band for his own daughter. Thus, we note that cross-cousin and cross-niece
964 American A nthropologist [68, 1966
marriages have been reported for South India, but not for North India. If the
initiation of a marriage in the south follows the pattern described for Bengal,
this would seem to imply that the guardian of a girl has approached his sister's
husband or his wife's father and has been offered a boy of one of those house-
holds. In both South India and Bengal, then, the same set of kinsmen are
approached. In the south, the kinsman's own son would be eligible, while in
Bengal local prescriptions would eliminate both sister's husband's son and
wife's brother. A son of a near relative-say, sister's husband's brother'sson-
would, however, be perfectly acceptable and a likely choice.
For Bengal, therefore, and for all regions of India where marriage is ar-
ranged in the same manner, we must turn our attention to the girl's guardian:
under what rules does he proceed; where does he have choice; what are his
preferences, and why? Since he does have choice-and among the choices,
preferences-his sentiments and motivations must be studied (cf. Homans
and Schneider 1955).

2. Kin-group exogamy/endogamy
In Bengal, marriage takes place within the framework of kinship. There
are prescribed boundaries to the group from which the guardian may take a
boy, and within that set there are subsets of families he must exclude from
consideration.
(a) Jat and 96maj: Every Bengal villager has a jat identification, and all
men of the same jat are assumed to be of common origin. Jat-brothers of
villages of a given geographical area form a s6maj, and most marriages are
within the g6maj. There is thus a definable group within which marriage must
take place, and that group is defined in terms of stipulated multilateral com-
mon descent. Beyond this group, there are only nonkin-whose children can-
not be considered by the guardian of a marriageable girl.
(b) Excluded kin groups: In Bengal, two categories of kin are excluded
from consideration by the girl's guardian. He excludes his gotr6-that named
group with which he shares stipulated patrilateral common descent. Moreover,
he will not marry the girl to any boy with whom she shares a demonstrated
common ancestor.
This phenomenon (kin exogamy/endogamy) is, of course, particularly
characteristic of India, though with considerable local variation. The en-
dogamy prescript appears to hold relatively unchanged throughout the sub-
continent, although in some parts the possibility of arranging a hypergamous
union may constitute an important variation. The exogamy prescripts appear
to be subject to considerable variation, perhaps partly because of regional
variations in other structural elements. Matrilineality, for example, would
require different bases for the excluded subsets. Again, where the gotra has
corporate attributes, such as Gaddi landownership rights (Newell 1963),
other differences might be expected. The history of culture contact, the nature
of settlement pattern-all different in different regions-must be considered.
It is even possible that the occurrence of a particular prescript, such as a
KLASS] Marriage Rules in Bengal 965
stated rule of locality exogamy, may be found to correlate only with the
presence of certain specific landed castes.'
3. Intensification of ties
This structural element and the next derive from Srinivas' formulation.
Srinivas notes that one principle ("intensification") is operative in South, or
Peninsular, India, while the other principle ("extension") is characteristic of
North Indian social structure. It may be, however, that both are to be detected
throughout the subcontinent, although the relative strength of manifestation
of each may vary sharply from region to region. Both, after all, reflect not
only social relationships but the same particularistic value standards as well,
in which priority is given to classificatory attributes (in this case, kin ties)
rather than to any general or universal standards (cf. Parsons and Shils 1962:
81-82). Apart from the socioeconomic obligations among village jats, mutual
obligation and trust and their supportive sanctions exist only between kins-
men. Where, under these conditions, marriage has the effect of bringing dis-
tantly or obscurely related families into closer relationship, or of tying together
unrelated families of the same jat and village, the principle of intensification
may be said to be operative.
A "value-orientation," Parsons and Shils have written, "may be inter-
preted as imposing a preference or giving a primacy to one alternative over
the other in a particular type of situation" (1962:78-79, their italics). In
Bengal, the guardian of a girl is in theory free to choose as her husband any
eligible boy of his own jat. In practice, for assistance in locating a boy the
guardian turns to closely related kinsmen, and they are likely to search first
among families closely related to them. Given both the nature of the action
of marriage initiation and the underlying values, the boy and girl are obviously
likely to be as closely related as jat rules permit and particular circumstances
provide.
This "principle of intensification" is particularly noticeable in South India,
where sister's son and wife's brother are not ruled out of consideration for a
marriageable daughter. Where such unions are permitted, the phenomenon
of "marriage alliance"--"the repetition of intermarriage through the course
of generations" (Dumont 1957, 1961)-becomes possible. Is there, however,
any evidence of a tendency toward the intensification of ties in North Indian
villages? Certainly, wherever "village exogamy" is the stated prescript, any
such tendency would be much obscured. But one avenue for investigation sug-
gests itself. In Bengal, when circumstances dictate a marriage between families
of very distant villages, or when nonkinsmen act as go-betweens, uncertainty
and hostility are significantly present throughout the period of marriage ar-
rangement. Where, in North India, the same values exist that elsewhere con-
tribute to the intensification of ties, but where local rules of kin and locality
exogamy make distant-village marriage (with nonkin as go-between) almost
inevitable, one would expect such hostility and tension at the time of marriage
to be of common occurrence.
966 American A nthropologist [68, 1966
4. Extension of ties
In Bengal, though one may search for a daughter's husband in one's natal
village, the overwhelming majority of matches are in fact made between fam-
ilies of different villages. Given the factors impelling toward "intensification,"
why should this be so? Srinivas speaks of a "principle of extension." Again,
we must seek to understand the operation of the principle in the area of values
as well as in other cultural categories. Marriage is usually virilocal in Bengal,
but relationships of affection between a woman and her natal family will con-
tinue. There will be much visiting back and forth, particularly in the early
years of marriage. When choosing a husband for his daughter, therefore, a
father desires to avoid the possibility of future conflict between the two fam-
ilies. For a number of reasons, which he assesses quite accurately, such con-
flicts are more likely between families of the same village and less likely
between families of different villages. The guardian of a boy is similarly
motivated to prefer a girl of a village other than his own. Furthermore, if
particularistic value-orientations influence decisions leading to the intensifica-
tion of kin ties, they may make certain extensions of ties equally desirable:
are there not obvious advantages in having a wide circle of close kin, and in
"opening up" a new village by the establishment of marriage ties with an
acceptable family within it?
There are, of course, other reasons why one must seek far afield for a
spouse for one's child. The marriage circle is never restricted to one village,
and a village in this area of Bengal is almost never constituted solely of the
representatives of one jat. For one thing, certain occupations are associated
exclusively with each jat, so that in many cases even if an inclination existed
to have a task performed within the jat group there would be complete tech-
nological unfamiliarity. Again, whether one's jat is characteristically land-
holder, ploughman, barber, or distiller, a given village can support only a
limited number of representatives. Jat-brothers beyond that number must
seek employment elsewhere and often move to the village in which they find
such opportunity. Thus, even if all families of the same jat in a given village
are not descended from a common ancestor, there will still be relatively few
families of that jat around. What is the likelihood that two such unrelated
families will have children of marriageable age at the same time? Quite fre-
quently, the Bengal villager can perceive no eligible candidate in his vicinity
and so must prospect farther and farther away.
We see, therefore, that the relationships of affection within the Bengal
family, the relationships between families of the same village, the customary
residence of the couple after marriage, the value system, the socioeconomic
system, and most particularly the settlement pattern all combine to impel a
man to wander away from his village in search of a bridegroom for his daugh-
ter. To what extent are familial relationships, values, and settlement patterns
different elsewhere in India? "Extension" is, of course, clearly present in the
village-exogamous parts of North India. But in South India, despite all desire
KLASS] Marriage Rules in Bengal 967
or pressure to intensify ties, what percentage of marriages is in fact made
within the village or hamlet, and how many are made outside?
From the preliminary appraisal offered here, it would appear that these
four structural elements do have an applicability to the understanding of
marriage in India beyond Bengal. Are they, however, limited to Hindu patri-
lineal India, or may they be considered for matrilineal or Muslim or "tribal"
groups? May their applicability extend even to Buddhist Ceylon? These ques-
tions cannot be answered here; but they should be answered, for with such
information other areas of investigation would receive illumination. To touch
one last time on the question of "locality exogamy," it is intriguing that what
is a prescript without acceptable alternative in parts of North India is a
preference in Bengal-while, on the other hand, one visits the same relatives
for aid in finding a bridegroom in South India and Bengal, but in the south
that kinsman's own son is eligible and in Bengal only his nephew. If we move
away from a simple north-south dichotomy and recognize the universality
of certain structural elements, we do more than perceive that marriage rules
in India reflect variations upon a basic India-wide theme. Much more than
that: we can begin to close with the implications of these variations. Can we
demonstrate, for India, the direction of change? Does prescript arise out of
earlier preferences-where, say, as in some Bengal villages, no endogamous
marriages have taken place for a few generations (cf. Arensberg 1957:97-113;
Slater 1959)? With culture contact, will a prescript without known alternatives
change to a prescript with known but unacceptable alternatives, and then to
situations of choice? This last question raises still more: What are the sources
of such change--what of innovation, culture contact, changing ecological cir-
cumstances-and how do they differently affect social structure in different
parts of India?
NOTES

1A condensed version of this paper was read at the 1964 Annual Meeting of the AAA in
Detroit. I am indebted to Conrad M. Arensberg, Owen Lynch, Yogesh Atal, Ralph W. Nicholas
and Herbert S. Lewis for extremely helpful advice and suggestions.
The data presented here derive from a year's research among some ten villages to the north of
Asansol, District Burdwan, West Bengal. Funds for this research were provided by a grant from
the National Institute of Mental Health, and I wish to express my gratitude to that organization.
2 The statement primarily reflects my own field observations, but I find nothing contra-
dictory in the literature available on Bengal social organization (see, for example, Dey 1878; Smith
1946; Mukherjee 1949; Basu 1962; Chattopadhyay 1963; Nicholas 1963; and Sarma 1963). I do
not mean to imply that no rule of village exogamy exists anywhere in Bengal, only that I have not
yet encountered it in either my research or my readings.
8 At times, what the Bengal villagers call a "jat" is more properly, at least according to the
"great tradition," a varna.
* The use of Bengali words in a paper such as this poses problems for which there is no easy
solution. Bengali is written in a script, related to the Devanagari, in which little provision has been
made for the substantial differences between Bengali and Sanskrit. Wherever possible, in fact, Ben-
gali spelling conventions ignore contemporary pronunciation, and the word is reproduced in an ap-
proximation of the original Sanskrit, even if original sounds have been lost or cbanged. The Ben-
968 American Anthropologist [68, 1966
gali reader, knowing his own language, reads the Sanskrit and pronounces the word appropriately
in Bengali. Unhappily for the speaker of English who knows nothing of Bengali, it has become the
custom to transliterate into English according to the Sanskrit spelling rather than the Bengali
pronunciation. A category of kinship referred to in this paper is pronounced dt:i0 (or dtti6), but it
would be spelled atmiya to indicate its ultimate relationship with itma (self, or soul).
On the assumption that most of my readers are unfamiliar with Bengali and would like to
know, simply, how the terms I use are pronounced, I have tried in every case to approximate the
local pronunciation in this paper. For those interested in the more customary transliteration from
the Bengali script, the following examples are given from terms used in this paper:
bramh6n [brahman]
sutr6dh6r [sutradhar]
96maj [samaj]
sraddbh [raiddha]
At:i5 [itmlya]
I indicate the Bengali low central vowel with a (pronounced as in "father") and the Bengali lower
mid-back vowel with 8 (pronounced as the vowel sound in "bought"). Spoken Bengali does not
distinguish between long and short "i" and long and short "u" and so I have not. Written Bengali
has three characters for "s," as did Sanskrit, and in the spelling in brackets I distinguish between
them. In spoken Bengali almost all sibilants are alveopalatal, or "hushing," represented here by 9.
5 The term "gotr6" is not used by Santals (a group speaking a language of the Munda-Kol
family) in the villages of this area, although their parif is not too dissimilar. Bauris claim to have
gotr6s, but their "gotr6" appears to be approximately coterminous with their "96maj," and is an
endogamous unit.
6 For Indians who emigrated as indentured laborers during the 19th century, the "fictive
kinship" pattern was strong enough to ease the transition from home and family to an alien cul-
tural matrix and to facilitate the retention and persistence of Indian cultural elements (cf. Koss
1958; Klass 1961).
SThis is the local usage. Even in the villages I studied, people did not always agree on defini-
tions of kin terms, and it is more than likely that usage differs in other parts of Bengal.
8 As Gould has noted for Western Faizabad (1960:485), numerically smaller jats, or those of
limited representation in any given village, may have a wider marriage circle even though they are
comparatively poor or of low rank and prestige.
9 This was suggested to me by Joan Mencher in a personal communication.

REFERENCES CITED

ARENSBERG, CONRAD 1M.

1957 Anthropology as history. In Trade and market in the early empires: economics in
history and theory. K. Polanyi, C. M. Arensberg, and H. W. Pearson, eds. Glencoe,
Ill., The Free Press.
BAsu, TARAKRISHNA
1962 The Bengal peasant from time to time. (Indian Statistical Institute.) Bombay, Asia
Publishing House.
BERREMAN, GERALDD.
1962 Village exogamy in northernmost India. Southwestern Journal of Anthropology
18:55-58.
CHATTOPADHYAY, GOURANGA
1963 Ranjana: a village in West Bengal. Calcutta, Bookland Private, Ltd.
DEY, LALBEHARI
1878 Bengal peasant life. London, Macmillan and Co.
DUMONT,Louis
1957 Hierarchy and marriage alliance in South Indian kinship. Occ. paper, Royal Anthro-
pological Institute, No. 12.
KLASS] Marriage Rules in Bengal 969
1961 Marriage in India, the present state of the question. Contributions to Indian Soci-
ology 5:75-95.
FRAKE,CHARLES
1962 Cultural ecology and ethnography. American Anthropologist 64:53-59.
GOODENOUGH,WARDH.
1951 Property, kin, and community on Truk. Yale University Publications in Anthro-
pology 46:1-192.
1957 Cultural anthropology and linguistics. In Report of the seventh annual round table
meeting on linguistics and language study. P. L. Garvin, ed. Monograph Series on
Language and Linguistics 9. Washington, D. C. Pp. 167-173.
GouLD, HAROLDA.
1960 The micro-demography of marriages in a North Indian area. Southwestern Journal
of Anthropology 16:476-491.
1961 A further note on village exogamy in North India. Southwestern Journal of Anthro-
pology 17:297-300.
GREENBERG,JOSEPH
1957 Language as a sign system. In Essays in linguistics. Chicago, University of Chicago
Press. Pp. 1-17.
HOMANS, GEORGE C., AND DAVID M. SCHNEIDER
1955 Marriage, authority and final causes: a study of unilateral cross-cousin marriage.
Glencoe, Ill., The Free Press.
HOWARD,ALLAN
1963 Land, activity systems, and decision-making models in Rotuma. Ethnology 2:407-
440.
KARVE,IRAWATI
1956 The cultural process in India. In Society in India. A. Aiyappan, ed. Madras Social
Science Association. Pp. 29-48.
1961 Hindu society-an interpretation. Poona, Deccan College Postgraduate and Re-
search Institute.
KLASS, MORTON
1961 East Indians in Trinidad. New York, Columbia University Press.
KLUCKHOHN,CLYDE
1941 Patterning as exemplified in Navaho culture. In Language, culture and personality:
essays in memory of Edward Sapir. L. Spier, A. I. Hallowell, S. S. Newman, eds.
Menasha, Wis., Sapir Memorial Publication Fund. Pp. 109-130.
Koss, JOAN
1958 Cultural conservatism among the East Indians in Trinidad. Paper read at 1958
Annual Meeting of American Anthropological Association, Washington, D.C.
LivI-STRAUSS,CLAUDE
1953 Social structure. In Anthropology today. A. L. Kroeber, ed. Chicago, University of
Chicago Press. Pp. 524-553.
1963 Structural anthropology. C. Jacobson and B. G. Schoepf, trans. New York, Basic
Books.
LEWIS,OSCAR
1955 Peasant culture in India and Mexico: a comparative analysis. In Village India:
studies in the little community. McKim Marriott, ed. AAA Memoir No. 83, pp.
145-170.
MARRIOTT,McKIM
1955 Little communities in an indigenous civilization. In Village India: studies in the
little community. McKim Marriott, ed. AAA Memoir No. 83, pp. 171-222.
MUKHERJEE, RAMAKRISHNA
1949 The economic structure and social life in six villages of Bengal. American Socio-
logical Review 14:415-425.
970 American Anthropologist [68, 1966]
NEEDHAM, RODNEY
1960 Structure and sentiment: a test case in social anthropology. Chicago, University of
Chicago Press.
NEWELL, W. H.
1963 Goshen: a Gaddi village in the Himalayas. In India's villages. M. N. Srinivas, ed.
Bombay, Asia Publishing House. Pp. 56-67.
NICHOLAS, RALPHW.
1963 Village factions and political parties in rural West Bengal. Journal of Common-
wealth Political Studies 2:17-31.
PARSONS, TALCOTT,AND EDWARD A. SHILS, EDS.
1962 Toward a general theory of action. New York, Harper & Row.
A. R.
RADCLIFFE-BROWN,
1952 Structure and function in primitive society. Glenoce, Ill., The Free Press.
SAILINS, MARSHALL D.
1963 Review of Social structure in Southeast Asia, G. P. Murdock, ed. Journal of the
Polynesian Society 72:39-50.
SARMA,JYOTIRMOYEE
1963 A village in West Bengal. In India's villages. M. N. Srinivas, ed. Bombay, Asia
Publishing House. Pp. 180-201.
SINGER, MILTON B.
1956 The cultural pattern of Indian civilization. Journal of Asian Studies 15:23-36.
SLATER,MARIAMKREISELMAN
1959 Ecological factors in the origin of incest. American Anthropologist 61:1042-1059.
SMITH, MARIAN W.
1946 Village notes from Bengal. American Anthropologist 48:574-592.
M. N.
SRINIVAS,
1963 Introduction. In India's villages. M. N. Srinivas, ed. Bombay, Asia Publishing
House. Pp. 1-4.
YALMAN, NUR
1962 The structure of Sinhalese kindred: a re-examination of the Dravidian terminology.
American Anthropologist 64:548-575.