The method had the further advantage that it afforded me the means of

checking the accounts which I was given. An informant inclined to be

careless soon found that I had the means of checking his narrative on

many points; and some of the people, not knowing the source of my

information, credited me with more knowledge than I really possessed,

and were in consequence extremely careful not to wander from the truth,

or perhaps I should rather say, not to tell me anything of which they

were not absolutely certain. I have already stated my belief that the

Todas are very truthful and that they err far more often from

carelessness than intention, but the fact that I had a fund of

knowledge of which the source was somewhat mysterious probably saved me

from having much of my time wasted by careless or inaccurate

information.

I think that my familiarity with the names and circumstances of the

people helped me to acquire their confidence. Among the more simple

people of Torres Straits, I used sometimes to let a man know, much to

his astonishment, that I was acquainted with some of the affairs of his

family. Among the more reticent Todas, it seemed to me unwise to do

this, but, on meeting for the first time a man with whom I was already

acquainted through the genealogies, I often referred to something I

knew he had done, perhaps to the skilful way he had caught the buffalo

at such and such a funeral, and the fact that I knew something of him

and his doings often helped to put us at once on friendly terms, and at

the same time put him on his mettle to give me the best of the

knowledge at his command.

THE TRUSTWORTHINESS OF THE GENEALOGIES

Before using the genealogical record as a means of studying the details

of the social organisation, it may be well to consider what guarantee

we have that the genealogies form a truthful record of the past. In

Torres Straits, where I gained my first experience in these matters, I

was so incredulous of the accuracy of the record that I obtained almost

every particle of information from two or three different and

independent sources, and it was only when I had finished that I found

the whole mass of material to furnish a record so consistent in itself

that it could hardly have been other than veracious.

Further, on investigating kinship and the regulation of marriage, both

on the basis of the genealogical record, it was found that the results

of one investigation closely corroborated the results of the other, and

that the combined investigations gave so consistent and coherent a

result that it was incredible that the genealogies on which the

investigations were based should have been other than faithful and

accurate records.

The Toda community is considerably larger than either of those with

which I worked in the islands of Torres Straits, and when I found that

the memories of the people extended back as far or nearly as far as in

those islands, it became obvious that I was confronted with a task of

considerable magnitude, and the question arose whether it was necessary

to obtain separate accounts of every family from independent witnesses,

as I had done previously, or whether I might not rely on the account of

a family given by one witness and only seek corroboration occasionally.

I began by following the same procedure as in Torres Straits, but soon

found that the accounts obtained independently showed a close

agreement, and I therefore contented myself in my later work with one

account, though every now and again I went over a piece of a pedigree

with a second witness. When I had finished, the consistency of all the

parts of the record with one another seemed to afford conclusive

evidence that I had obtained what is, on the whole, a veracious record.

Of course, in so large a mass of material there are mistakes. [189] In

one family no doubt a child has been omitted, especially when it died

young and had no posterity to make its name important; in another case

perhaps a child has been added to a family who was really the offspring

of another mother. That there are such mistakes is certain, but they

are probably few in number, and I have no doubt that, with one

exception to be presently considered, such mistakes as have crept in do

not appreciably impair the value of the genealogies as a record of the

working of social regulations.

There is one deficiency of the record, however, of the existence of

which I have little doubt—a deficiency entirely due to my own

carelessness. To me the chief interest of the genealogies is that they

are a record of the past—a record of the working of social regulations

which at the present time may be already affected by the new influences

coming into the lives of primitive people all over the world. In my

absorption in the records of the past, I have often neglected the

present and have omitted to ascertain carefully the children of

families at present in process of growth. In several cases I have

failed to obtain the names of children of people now living, and I have

very little doubt that I have in several or many cases omitted the

names of other children of growing families. I had one excuse for this

in the fact already mentioned, that I had to obtain my information

about a given family from people of some other family. A man would

often know all about the members of the given family in the past, but,

living perhaps at some distance from the family in question, he was

often hazy as to the exact number and names of the children recently

born, and it is the record of children under five years of age which I

know to be deficient.

If the number of the Todas now living and recorded in the genealogies

be counted, it will be found that there are 736 individuals, 419 males

and 317 females. In the census of 1901 the total population is given as

805,451 males and 354 females. My record falls short of that of the

census by 69 individuals, 32 males and 37 females.

Further, when I arrange the people now living according to age, it is

found that there is a distinct deficiency in children under five years

of age. Thus, my records of age come out as follows:—

Males. Females.

Above 65 years. 9 3

61–65 ,, 4 7

56–60 ,, 19 9

51–55 ,, 20 17

46–50 ,, 26 21

41–45 ,, 26 18

36–40 ,, 26 27

31–35 ,, 40 25

26–30 ,, 40 33

21–25 ,, 38 28

16–20 ,, 32 31

11–15 ,, 41 20

6–10 ,, 54 33

5 and under 44 45

--- ---

Total 419 317

The ages upon which this table is based could only be obtained very

roughly, and the figures must be taken merely as rough approximations

to the truth. The irregularities of the table may be due partly to this

defect, but it is very improbable that there are about the same number

of children of five and under as of children between six and ten, and

we may be fairly confident that but for omissions the numbers of the

youngest group, especially of boys, would have been larger.

I have reason to believe, further, that I have not omitted any

appreciable number of adults or children over five years of age. I

tested 320 males and 183 females for colour-blindness, and as I was

anxious to test every member of the community who was old enough, I

obtained towards the end of my visit the names of all those who had not

been tested. I only attempted to test children when over five years of

age, and I have therefore an independent record of the living Todas

above this age, so that it is fairly certain that the greater part of

the deficiency in the genealogical record is of children about or below

the age of five, though it is possible that I may also have missed a

certain number of women.

This deficiency does not in the slightest degree affect the value of

the pedigrees as a record of marriages or of the working of social

regulations, but it does impair the value of the statistics concerning

the average size of a family and other matters of biological interest,

though only for the last generation.

On looking through my genealogical tables, it will be seen that

different clans and families differ very greatly in the fulness of

their record. In some cases I have pedigrees going back to the

great-grandfathers of men now in middle life; in other cases I have

only the names of the fathers of such men. The briefness of the record

is especially marked in the case of the outlying clans, such as

Kwòdrdoni, Pedrkars, and Päm, which I only visited for short periods.

During these visits there was so much to be done that something had to

suffer and the genealogies were usually the victims. If I had had more

time, I have little doubt that I could have obtained much fuller

records in many cases.

BUFFALO PEDIGREES

Marshall has stated that the Todas preserve the pedigrees of their

buffaloes in the female line, and when I had found how carefully the

Todas preserved their own pedigrees my next step was to endeavour to

ascertain if the pedigrees of their buffaloes were preserved with the

same amount of care and completeness. I returned to this subject again

and again, but with very imperfect success. The Todas always treated my

inquiries on this subject as if they were trifling and ridiculous. It

is possible that this was one of the points on which they were

reticent, but I am inclined to think that I was told all there was to

tell.

To a certain extent it is correct to say that the pedigrees of the

buffaloes are preserved, and in the female line only. If any given

buffalo were taken as the starting-point, the owner could usually tell

me the names of the mother of the buffalo and of the mother’s mother,

and occasionally I obtained the names of the immediate ancestors in the

female line for four generations. Thus, Nertiners of Taradr (24) had a

buffalo named Kârstum who was the daughter of Idrsh. Idrsh was the

daughter of Persud, who was the daughter of Nerûv, who was the daughter

of Kiûd. Another of his buffaloes, Keien, was descended from Koisi,

Nerûv, and Kâsimi in the order named.

I could not ascertain that the Todas kept any record of the collateral

lines of descent, nor was there, so far as I could find, any idea of

kinship between buffaloes descended from the same recent ancestor. Two

buffaloes born of the same mother would be known, of course, to be

sisters, but no importance seemed to be attached to the relationship.

An obvious reason for the limitation of the pedigrees of the buffaloes

to the female line is the fact that only female buffaloes are named, so

that there are no means of recording male parentage. We shall see later

that among themselves the Todas attach little importance to paternity,

and the same indifference is found in their attitude towards their

buffaloes. The essential reason for the nature of the record of

buffalo-descent is the complete absence of desire to maintain the

purity of the breed, even of the most sacred herds, and the complete

lack of attention to ties of consanguinity between buffaloes mated

together.

THE TODA POPULATION

The chapters on kinship and marriage will furnish object-lessons on the

method of application of the knowledge derived from the genealogies to

the study of social regulations. In the remainder of this chapter I

propose to consider various problems connected with population, of

biological as well as of sociological interest. The data derived from

the genealogies are here of distinct service, though, for reasons

already considered, their value is not so great as in the investigation

of social regulations.

Records of the numbers of the Todas have been taken at various times,

beginning with what must have been a very rough estimate made by Keys

[190] in 1812, in which the number of the Todas or Thothavurs was

placed at 179. In 1821, Ward [191] estimated the numbers of men and

women at 140 and 82 respectively, of whom the great majority lived in

the Todanad district of the hills.

Hough [192] in 1825 found the population to consist of 145 men, 100

women, 45 boys, and 36 girls, altogether 326.

In 1838, Birch [193] gives the population as consisting of 294 men and

184 women, amounting to 478, but elsewhere in his paper he says that

the number of the Todas was computed at about 800.

In 1847, Ouchterlony [194] found the number of the Todas to be 337,

made up of 86 adult males, 87 male children, 70 adult females, and 94

female children. The proportion of males to females is only 173 to 164,

showing a very much smaller preponderance of males than in any other

estimate before or since.

In 1856, Grigg [195] gives 185 males and 131 females, altogether 316.

In 1866, Grigg gives the population as 704. If the estimates of this

year and that of 1856 were correct, it would show that the population

had more than doubled in ten years. It is evident that the census of

1866 is the first which gives anything approaching an accurate record

of the Toda population. Even in this year there is one obvious source

of error, for it would seem that those living at the foot of the hills,

near Gudalur were not included, and probably twenty or thirty, if not

more, would have to be added on this account.

For the census of 1871 the records are conflicting. On p. 29 of the

Manual, Grigg gives the numbers as 693, 405 males and 288 females. On

p. 187 he gives instead of these numbers 376 males and 263 females,

making a total of 639. Breeks gives the latter numbers and also a

revised result which brings out the total population as 683. This

figure, or the earlier of Grigg’s figures, evidently approximates to

the correct population, which shows a slight falling off as compared

with five years earlier.

In the census of 1881, the numbers would appear to have continued to

diminish, the population being put at only 675; 382 males and 293

females.

In 1891, the number had risen to 736; 424 males and 312 females.

In the census of 1901, which was taken with especial care to record all

the Todas, there were found to be 451 males and 354 females, making

together 805.

The population as recorded in my genealogical tables compiled in 1902

was only 736; 419 males and 317 females. My numbers fall far short of

those of the census taken a year previously. As I have already pointed

out, my genealogies are untrustworthy as a record of the young children

of the community now living, and it is possible also that I have

omitted a certain number of women. The excess of men over women is

distinctly greater in my figures than in the census of 1901, and this

may be due to the fact that I failed to hear of a certain number of

widows or unmarried women or girls. If so, it is probable that these

defects are in the genealogies of the Teivaliol, and it is in them that

the excess of men is greatest.

The earlier records of the population are certainly far below the mark.

Captain Harkness, writing in 1832, estimates the attendance at a

funeral at 300 men, nearly half that number of women, and about as many

boys and girls. Those seen by Harkness may not have been all Todas,

since Badagas and Kotas undoubtedly attend Toda funerals, but we may

safely call this a total attendance of 500, which would show that the

records of Hough in 1825 and of Birch in 1838 are far below the mark,

and that Birch’s rough estimate of 800 is probably far more nearly

correct, and may even have been too small.

The records have probably been fairly complete since 1866, and if so,

they show a falling off in population from this date till the 1881

census. It is, however, possible that the gradual increase in numbers

during recent censuses has been due to the greater care taken at each

succeeding census. Unsatisfactory as the records are, they seem to

point to a diminution of population about the middle of the last

century, which ceased between 1880 and 1890, since which time the

population has probably increased.

Mr. R. C. Punnett [196] has analysed the data furnished by my

genealogical records to ascertain the average size of the Toda family.

He divided the families recorded in the genealogies into four groups:

(A) those where the eldest child would in 1903 be over 90 years of age;

(B) those where he would be between 60 and 90; (C) and (D) those where

he would be between 30 and 60 and between 0 and 30 respectively. He has

recorded the results for Tartharol and Teivaliol separately in the

following table.

Group. Tartharol. Teivaliol.

No. of Average size ♂s per No. of Average size ♂s per

families. of family. 100 ♀s. families. of family. 100 ♀s.

A 9 3·0 [4·2] 237·5 4 4·5 [6·0] 200

B 49 4·1 [5·0] 159·7 21 3·8 [5·4] 259

C 87 3·3 [3·7] 131·4 40 3·8 [5·0] 202

D 104 2·5 [2·8] 129·2 45 2·3 [2·9] 171

The figures in square brackets give the average size of the family for

each generation, making allowance for cases of female infanticide,

which we shall see presently to be a Toda custom which is almost

certainly diminishing in frequency.

The conclusion Mr. Punnett draws from this table is that there has been

a marked decrease in fertility during the period covered by the

genealogies.

The defects in my record as regards young children make any conclusions

about the last generation very inconclusive, but since the record for

very young children is certainly defective, and since many families now

existing will certainly increase in size, it is probable that any

progressive decrease in the size of a family has now been arrested, and

the details of the genealogical record would therefore agree with the

Census Reports in showing the presence of a distinct tendency of the

Toda population to increase.

None of the previous records have given any indication of the numbers

of the two chief divisions of the Toda people. According to my

genealogical records, there were living, in 1902, 528 Tartharol and 208

Teivaliol. The defects in my record are probably somewhat greater for

the Teivaliol than for the Tartharol, but any difference there may be

is certainly not great, and I think we may conclude that, though these

figures are not accurate, they represent approximately the true

proportion of the numbers of the two divisions. It is quite certain

that the Tartharol are more than twice as numerous as the Teivaliol.

Mr. Punnett’s table does not show any great difference between the two

divisions in the average size of the family, so that the proportion

between the numbers of the two divisions has probably not altered

during the period covered by the genealogical record. It is probable

that the Teivaliol have always or for a very long time been the smaller

division.

The Census Reports and the genealogical record then agree in pointing

to a diminution of the Toda population about the middle of last century

which has now ceased, the probability being that the Todas are

increasing slightly in numbers.

There can be little doubt that any decrease in the Toda population

about the middle of last century was the direct result of the changes

brought about by the advent of Europeans to the Nilgiri Hills. The

adverse influences which came into the lives of the Todas probably owe

their origin to the large immigration of native servants and to the

development of the bazaar. Though Europeans first began to come to the

Nilgiri Hills about 1820, it was not till twenty or thirty years later

that they arrived in any considerable numbers, so that it was probably

the middle of the century before the injurious influences made their

effects felt to any great effect.

The especial influences injurious to fertility have probably been

syphilis and sexual immorality, for the Todas do not appear to have

fallen to any very great extent under the influence of alcohol or

opium. They certainly take both, and especially after the market day at

the Ootacamund bazaar, I have seen Todas obviously under the influence

of drink; but I believe this to have been only an influence of minor

importance on the health of the people. Syphilis, on the other hand,

has undoubtedly affected them to a considerable extent. At the present

time its ravages are not very obvious, though, without looking for it

especially, I saw several examples of its effects. There can be little

doubt, however, that it has been a potent factor in the past. In a note

in a book by A. C. Burnell, [197] it is mentioned that in 1871

thirty-one Todas were treated at Ootacamund for venereal disease, and

of these thirty were syphilitic. This means that in one year over 4 per

cent. of the total Toda population were treated for syphilis at one

place, and we may be fairly confident that all those suffering from the

disease did not apply for treatment.

Another factor working towards the diminution of the population has

probably been sexual immorality. I shall have to return to this subject

again later, and must be content here to point out that the Toda women

have a very bad reputation, though perhaps their laxity is not as great

as is usually supposed. Still, there can be little doubt that the women

of some villages are extremely immoral, and it is probable that this

has distinctly tended to produce sterility.

If the diminution in the size of the Toda family is due to these

adverse influences, it should be found to be greatest in those sections

of the Toda community which have been most subject to these influences.

The best way of throwing light on this question is to compare the

fertility of the different clans of the Tartharol. Some of these, such

as Nòdrs, Pan, Taradr, and Kanòdrs, either live in outlying parts of

the hills or are sufficiently remote from the chief centres of the

European population not to have been influenced very greatly.

The chief village of the Kars clan is situated close to Ootacamund and

has suffered greatly from its neighbours, but many of the villages of

the clan are more remote, so that the clan may be put down as one

partly influenced. The people of Päm and Nidrsi, on the other hand, are

more influenced than any other of the Toda clans, as is shown by the

alterations in their villages and the neglect of the ritual of their

religion. The villages of the Pämol are, or were, near to Wellington

Barracks, and it is certainly the most degenerated of all the Toda

clans. The following table, taken from Mr. Punnett’s paper, shows the

average size of the family in each case, and though the figures are

somewhat irregular, they bear out the view that sterility is greater

the more the people have come into contact with Europeans and their

followers.

Name of clan. No. of No. of Average size Average size

families. offspring. of family. of family

for group.

Nòdrs } 14 54 3·84 } 3·59

Pan } (uninfluenced) 8 21 2·37 }

Taradr } 9 43 4·77 }

Kanòdrs } 11 33 3·00 }

Kars (partly influenced) 25 76 3·04 3·04

Päm } (much influenced) 10 22 2·20 } 2·60

Nidrsi } 10 30 3·00 }

PROPORTION OF THE SEXES

The records of the Toda population in the past all show an excess of

men over women, and with the exception of the record of Ouchterlony,

which is certainly untrustworthy, the excess is considerable. In view

of their untrustworthiness no importance can be attached to the records

taken earlier than that of 1866, and in the report for that year I have

been unable to ascertain the proportions of the sexes. In 1871 there

were 140·6 men for every 100 women; in 1881, 130·4 for every 100; in

1891, 135·9, and in the census of 1901, 127·4 men for every 100 women.

My figures, derived from the genealogical record, give for 1902, 132·2

men for every 100 women, a proportion distinctly greater than that of

the census, which suggests that it is in the female portion of the

community that my records are most defective.

In the table on p. 474 taken from Mr. Punnett’s paper, it is seen that

the data derived from the genealogical record agree with those of the

Census Reports in showing on the whole a progressive decrease in the

excess of men over women. The number of families in the first group is

too small to give them much importance, but for the three succeeding

generations of the Tartharol, the numbers of males for every 100

females are 159·7, 131·4, and 129·2, while for the Teivaliol the

figures are 259, 202, and 171 respectively.

The Census Reports and the genealogical record thus agree in showing a

progressive diminution in the excess of men over women.

There can be little doubt as to the cause of this. All accounts of the

Todas agree in attributing to them the practice of female infanticide,

though, at the present time, the Todas are very chary of acknowledging

the existence of the practice. They deny it absolutely for the present,

and they are reluctant to speak about it for the past.

I do not think that there is the slightest doubt that it was at one

time very prevalent, and that it has greatly diminished in frequency,

but that it is still practised to some extent. The chance remarks of

children to my interpreter, Samuel, had shown him that the practice is

still followed occasionally, and I think it far from unlikely that it

is even now not a very rare occurrence.

In Mr. Punnett’s table, it will be seen that the genealogical data show

that the excess of men is far greater in the Teivaliol than in the

Tartharol, and the excess in the former is so great as to leave little

doubt that the practice is still followed in this division not

infrequently. If this is so, it is probably due to the fact that the

Teivaliol chiefly inhabit the more outlying parts of the hills, so

that, on the whole, they have been less affected than the Tartharol by

the various influences which have come into the lives of the Todas. An

accessory factor may have been the priestly functions of the Teivalioi,

which have probably tended to make them more conservative.

Previous writers on the Todas have differed considerably in their

accounts of the method of infanticide, and I regret very much that I

cannot contribute any facts towards the settlement of the question. The

subject was one about which the Todas talked so unwillingly that I made

no great endeavours to arrive at the truth. A method which has been

commonly attributed to the Todas is that of placing the infant at the

gate of the buffalo-pen before this is opened in the morning, the herd

rushing out and trampling on the child. Another less likely method has

been said to be that the infant is drowned in buffalo milk.

The most probable account is that given to Marshall [198] by an aged

Toda, who stated that the child is suffocated by an old woman, who

receives a fee of four annas, and that the child is then buried, which,

as we have seen, is the method of disposing of the bodies of still-born

children.

There is little reason to connect the practice of female infanticide

among the Todas with any deficiency in the necessaries for existence.

It seems clear that at one time the Todas supplemented their food of

milk with berries, roots, &c., but it is improbable that they were ever

in such straits for food that they would have resorted to infanticide

on this account. Marshall’s informant ascribed infanticide to the

poverty of his people, but this was probably said in order to excuse

the practice.

In an earlier part of this chapter we saw that there is evidence of a

former diminution of the Toda population. At the same time we see that

there is evidence of a diminution of the practice of female

infanticide, which would, of course, tend to increase the population.

It would thus seem that there have existed among the Todas, during the

last fifty years, certain factors tending to diminish the population

and one factor tending to increase it. We may conclude that, but for

the diminution of infanticide, the falling off in numbers would have

been greater, and that the tendency to increase which seems at present

to exist may be due, wholly or in part, to the diminution of

infanticide.

There is one indication that female infanticide has almost entirely

ceased during the last five years, and even that there may now be an

excess of female births. In the table of ages given on page 469, it

will be seen that the pedigrees record more girls than boys of five

years and under. There is no reason why my record of such young

children should have been more defective for one sex than for the

other, and the proportion here may be approximately correct.

TWINS

Twins are called ömumokh and it is the custom to kill one of them, even

when both are boys. If they should be girls, it is probable that both

would be killed, or, at any rate, would have been killed in the past.

There is one case of twins in the genealogies. Iraveli, the wife of

Kwötuli and Nudriki (8), gave birth to twins about twelve years ago.

Both were boys, and I was first told that one had died shortly after

birth, but later inquiries made it almost certain that the boy had been

killed. Some time after the birth of the twins, one of the buffaloes of

Kwötuli and Nudriki is said to have had a calf with one body, two

heads, and four legs. The buffalo died before the calf was born, and

the monstrosity was found by the Kotas, to whom the body was given. It

was generally expected that something would happen to Kwötuli or

Nudriki, but they have since been very prosperous.

THE DETERMINATION OF AGE

This is a suitable place to say a word about the method I adopted to

ascertain the ages of the Todas. Like all people at a low stage of

culture, the Todas are very uncertain about their ages, though their

knowledge is more accurate than that of many peoples. Every Toda knows,

however, whether he is older or younger than another, this fact

determining the names and salutations they give to one another, as we

shall see in the next chapter. A few of the younger men seemed to have

accurate knowledge of their ages, and building up on this basis, and

with a knowledge of the relative ages of the different members of the

community, it became possible to arrive at estimates which probably do

not deviate very widely from the correct ages; even in the case of the

older people, I do not believe that my estimated ages are likely to be

more than five years out in any case. As already mentioned (see p.

416), the Todas make use, in the estimation of age, of their belief in

the eighteen-year period of a flower, and the ages so estimated in a

few cases agreed fairly with those arrived at in other ways.

Among those now alive, it seemed that the usual time which separates

the birth of two children of the same mother is about three years, and

I have taken this time as the rule in estimating the ages of all those

whose names are included in the genealogies. Similarly, so far as I

could tell, women begin to bear children when about eighteen to twenty

years of age.

The ages of the four groups given in the table on p. 474 were

calculated on the assumptions that a woman had her first child when

twenty years old, and that the interval between the births of two

children was three years.

The oldest Toda now living is Kiugi (57). He looks an extremely old

man, and is said by the Todas to be nearly a hundred years of age.

There is evidence which makes it probable that he is at least eighty or

ninety. Kòrs, the father of Kiugi, performed the pursütpimi ceremony

before the birth of Teitchi (52) (see p. 564). Teitchi’s grandson,

Kuriolv, is now about fifty-four years of age. When Kòrs gave the bow

and arrow he may have been only a young boy, and if we assume that he

was fifteen years old, that Teitchi and Pareivan had their first

children when twenty years old, and that the interval between the birth

of Pilzink and that of Pareivan was six years, it would make the age of

Kòrs, if he were still alive, 115. If Kiugi was born when his father

was twenty years old, it would make his age ninety-five. If, on the

other hand, we assume that Kòrs gave the bow and arrow when only ten

years of age, and that he did not have his first child till he was

thirty, it would make Kiugi’s age eighty. Kiugi’s eldest child, if

alive, would now probably be about sixty, and this supports the view

that the lowest possible estimate of Kiugi’s age is eighty, and he is

not improbably a good deal older.

CHAPTER XXI

KINSHIP

The system of kinship was studied chiefly by means of the genealogies.

The Todas are sufficiently intelligent to be able to give satisfactory

definitions of their terms expressing different kinds of relationship,

but the genealogies were very useful in checking these definitions and

in working out several points in detail.

The Toda system of kinship is of the kind known as classificatory with

several interesting special features. Perhaps the most important of

these is the use of the same terms for mother’s brother and

father-in-law on the one hand, and for father’s sister and

mother-in-law on the other hand. This is a natural consequence of the

regulation which ordains that the proper marriage for a man is one with

the daughter either of his mother’s brother or father’s sister.

Another important feature of the Toda system is the existence of two

well-marked groups of terms expressing bonds of kinship; one used when

speaking of relatives, and the other when speaking to relatives and in

exclamations. The latter, which may be regarded as vocative cases of

the former, are fewer in number and used in a much more general sense;

and if the two are not distinguished, it is easy to understand that one

may find only “inextricable confusion in Toda ideas as to

relationship.” [199] I will first give a list of kinship terms,

together with the forms used in direct address, and the approximate

definitions, and these will be followed by a discussion of the exact

meaning of each term. The vocative forms are enclosed in brackets.

Pevian, great-grandfather.

Peviav, great-grandmother.

Pian (pia), grandfather.

Piav (piava), grandmother.

In (aia), father.

Av (ava), mother.

Mokh (ena), son.

Kugh (ena), daughter.

Mokh pedvai mokh (ena), grandson.

Mokh pedvai kugh (ena), granddaughter.

An (anna), elder brother.

Egal (egala), brother of same age.

Nòdrved (enda), younger brother.

Akkan (akka), elder sister.

Nòdrvedkugh (enda), younger sister.

Mun (mama), mother’s brother and wife’s father.

Mumi (mimia), father’s sister and wife’s mother.

Manmokh (ena), sister’s son.

Mankugh (ena), sister’s daughter.

Matchuni, child of a mother’s brother or father’s sister.

Òl (òl or òlia), husband.

Kotvai or tazmokh (tazmokh or tazmokhia), wife.

Paiol, general name for male relatives of wife.

Motvilth (ena), son’s wife.

A general name for those of the same clan is annatam, but I am not sure

that this is not properly a borrowed word.

In giving a more detailed account of these terms of kinship, it will

perhaps be convenient to begin with the relationship of in, or father.

In. A person speaks of his father as “en in,” “my father,” while “his

father” would be “tan in.” An in is addressed as aia. These names are

applied not only to the father, but also to the father’s brothers,

whether they are husbands of the mother or not.

The names in or aia are also given to all the males of the clan (madol)

who are of the same generation as the father; also to the husbands of

the sisters of the mother, sisters here including both own sisters and

clan-sisters, i.e., to the husbands of all those who are of the same

clan and generation as the mother. Elder brothers of the father (either

own brothers or clan-brothers) are often addressed as perudaia, while

younger brothers are called karudaia, and in speaking of such men the

expressions “en in perud” and “en in karud” would be used. When a man

speaks of one of his more remote fathers, and it may be doubtful of

whom he is speaking, he may add the name of the man; thus Siriar (20)

would speak of Paniolv (26), the husband of his mother’s sister, as

“Pani in.”

Av. A mother is spoken of as en av or tan av, and addressed as ava.

These names are also applied to the wife of a father other than the

actual mother, to the sisters of the mother, to the wives of the

father’s brothers, and to the sisters of the wife’s father. Every woman

of the same clan and generation as the mother is an av. In general the

wife of an in is an av. As in the case of the in, a distinction is made

between the elder and younger sisters of the mother, the former being

addressed as perudava and the latter karudava. Similarly the wife of an

elder brother of the father is perudava and of a younger karudava. Such

relatives may be spoken of as “en av perud” and “en av karud.”

Mokh and Kugh. Every one whom a man calls in or av calls the man mokh,

and every one to whom a woman gives these names calls the woman kugh.

In direct address, both mokh and kugh are called ena (? enna).

In speaking of his brother’s children, a man may make clear whether he

is speaking of the child of an elder or younger brother; thus he may

say “en nòdrvedvain mokh,” “my younger brother’s son.” Mokh is often

used as a general term for “child” and may be applied to persons of

either sex.

Pian. This name is given to both paternal and maternal grandfathers and

to their brothers, certainly in the narrow sense and probably in the

wider. Every male of the speaker’s clan of the same generation as the

father’s father would certainly be called “en pian.” The brother of the

father’s mother is also called pian, but I am doubtful whether the term

is used for all the clan-brothers of the father’s mother Similarly I am

uncertain how far the clan-brothers of the mother’s father and mother’s

mother receive this name. A pian is addressed as pia.

Piav. This is the name of both paternal and maternal grandmothers, and

in general the wife of a pian is a piav. A piav is addressed as piava.

All those addressed as pian or piav will address the speaker as ena.

When speaking of his grandson, a man will say “en mokh pedvai” or “en

mokh pedvai mokh,” literally “my born to my son” or “my son born to my

son,” and there were no less elaborate terms.

The son of a daughter is called en kugh pedvai mokh, “my daughter who

born to son,” taking the words in order, or “my son born to my

daughter.” A daughter of a son is called en mokh pedvai kugh, and the

daughter of a daughter, en kugh pedvai kugh. Since, however, mokh is

often used as a general name for “child,” I believe that this word

usually takes the place of kugh, and that in consequence a grandchild

of either sex is called en mokh pedvai mokh.

Pevian and peviav. These words for great-grandfather and

great-grandmother have a similar wide connotation. The word pef is an

ancient term for “great” which is used in some of the magical

incantations (see p. 267).

An. This is the name for elder brother and for all members of the clan

of a man or woman who are of the same generation as, and older than,

the man or woman. An an is addressed as anna.

Nòdrved. This is the name for younger brother and for all members of

the clan of the same generation as, and younger than, the speaker. En

nòdrved or nòdrped means literally “my born with.” A nòdrved is

addressed as enda.

Egal. A corresponding relative who is of the same age is called en egal

and is addressed as egala.

These terms are used both by men and women of and to men.

Akkan. This term is applied by both men and women to an elder sister,

and is also given to all female members of the same clan who are of the

same generation as, and older than, the speaker. An akkan is addressed

as akka.

Nòdrvedkugh. A younger sister is spoken of by this name, which is also

given to all the female members of the same clan and generation, but

younger than the speaker. Such a relative is addressed by the same term

as is applied to a younger brother, viz., enda. Two sisters of the same

age are egal and egala to one another.

These terms for “brother” and “sister” are also applied to one another

by the children of two sisters. Thus a man would call the son of his

mother’s sister an, and address him as anna if the latter were older

than himself, and would be spoken of by the latter as en nòdrved and

addressed as enda. If of the same age they would be egal or egala to

one another. Similarly a man addresses the daughter of his mother’s

sister as akka or enda according to age. I am doubtful how widely the

terms for brotherhood and sisterhood are applied in this case. I do not

know whether the children of two women of the same generation in a

large clan like that of Kars would call one another brother and sister.

Thus the children of two brothers are brothers and sisters, and the

children of two sisters are also brothers and sisters, while, as we

shall see shortly, the children of brother and sister receive another

name. The children of two sisters belong to different clans except in

those cases in which the sisters have married men of the same clan.

Thus a man may have brothers and sisters in several different clans.

Mun. This is the name of the mother’s brother, of the father’s sister’s

husband, and of the wife’s father. The last is also spoken of as paiol

together with other relatives of the wife. In the case of the orthodox

Toda marriage, in which a man marries the daughter of his mother’s

brother, or of his father’s sister, the mun is at the same time both

wife’s father and either mother’s brother or father’s sister’s husband,

but the wife’s father is still called mun even when a man marries a

woman to whom he is unrelated.

The term mun is not only applied by a man to the own brothers of his

mother, but also to her clan-brothers. When a man has many mun, he may

show to which he is referring by mentioning his name; thus Siriar (20)

would say “Karsüln mun” if he referred to this relative, the husband of

his father’s sister, and he might speak in the same way of a

clan-brother of his mother.

A distinction is often made between older and younger mun; thus, if a

man’s mother had two brothers, the elder would be called en mun perud

and the younger en mun karud. A mun is addressed as mama.

Mumi. This is the name of the father’s sister, of the wife of a

mother’s brother, and of the wife’s mother, the terms brother and

sister being again used in a wide sense. In general, the wife of a mun

is a mumi. A mumi is addressed as mimia.

Manmokh. A person would apply the term manmokh to his sister’s son and

his wife’s brother’s son. It is a term reciprocal to mun in so far as

this term is one for mother’s brother and father’s sister’s husband. I

am not quite certain whether it would be used for a son-in-law who was

not also a sister’s son, but I am almost certain that this would be

done.

The term is also applied to the sons of clan-sisters, and when used in

this more distant way a distinction is sometimes made. En manmokh would

mean “my (own) sister’s son,” Em manmokh, literally “our sister’s son,”

would be used for children of a more distant sister.

Mankugh is used in exactly the same way as manmokh for sister’s

daughter, &c.

Matchuni. This is the term applied to one another by the children, both

male and female, of brother and sister. While the children of two

brothers are brothers or sisters (an, egal, akka or nòdrved) and the

children of two sisters are also brothers and sisters, the children of

a brother and sister are matchuni. In other words, the children of an

individual’s mother’s brother or of his father’s sister are the

matchuni of the individual.

When a man addresses his male matchuni he calls him anna, egala or

enda, according to their relative ages. Similarly when a woman

addresses her female matchuni, she calls her akka, egala or enda,

according to age.

When a man addresses his female matchuni, he calls her either tazmokhia

or kughia (see below). He gives her the former name because he is

allowed to marry her; she is a woman who might normally be his wife and

he therefore addresses her as wife.

Similarly a woman addresses her male matchuni as òlia; she calls him

husband because he may become her husband.

As in the case of other relationships, a man may define more exactly of

whom he is speaking when he refers to a matchuni, and may say instead

en munkugh, the daughter of my mun. Two kinship terms are thus used

which resemble one another closely, but have very different

meanings:—en munkugh, my uncle’s daughter, and en mankugh, my sister’s

daughter.

Òl, husband. A woman speaks of her husband as en òl and addresses him

as òlia.

Kotvai and tazmokh, wife. A man speaks of his wife as en kotvai, and

addresses her as tazmokhia.

Paiol. This is a general term for the male relatives of the wife. It is

applied especially to the wife’s father, the wife’s brothers, and the

brothers of the wife’s father.

It seemed that this term should only properly be applied to the near

relatives of the wife. Those whom the wife would address as aia, anna,

or enda, because members of her clan, need not be called paiol by the

husband.

Paiol is a reciprocal term, and it is therefore applied by a man to the

daughter’s husband, the sister’s husband, and to the husband of the

brother’s daughter.

A paiol is addressed as anna, egala, or enda, according to age.

Motvilth. This term is the equivalent of daughter-in-law and is applied

by a man to his son’s wife. A woman is also the motvilth of the

brothers of her husband’s father. A motvilth is addressed as ena.

There did not seem to be any brief term for the sister of a wife, and a

man would speak of her as en kotvai akkan if older, or as en kotvai

nòdrved if younger than the wife.

Sometimes the Todas add to some of the kinship names the word potch,

which is said to have the meanings “begetting” or “begotten.” I met

with this especially in the lamentations used at funerals. A man would

say, “en potch aia”—“O my father which begot me”; “en potch anna”—“O my

elder brother begotten with me.” For a younger brother, however, this

word would not be used; a man would not say, “en potch nòdrved ia,”

because ved has the same significance as potch, nòdrved meaning also

“born with” or “begotten with.”

Every male of a man’s own clan is either his pian; his in; his an,

egal, or nòdrved; his mokh, or his mokh pedvai mokh. In most cases a

clan consists of several families, and these families may be unrelated

to one another so far as the evidence from the genealogical record

goes. Nevertheless, every Toda knows exactly the proper kinship terms

to apply to all the members of his clan. I inquired in detail into the

basis of this knowledge in the case of the Taradrol, consisting of six

pòlm or divisions. All the members of each pòlm trace their descent

from a man whose name is known, and the pedigrees of the six pòlm are

given in the genealogical tables 20 to 25.

It was known that three of these pòlm were closely related to one

another, and that the other three were also closely related. The

following table expresses the relationship in the first case:—

|

| | |

♂ ♂ TEITHI

| | |

NASIDZ PERATUTHI (See 20)

| |

(See 22) (See 21)

It was not perfectly certain whether Teithi and the two men whose names

were not remembered were own brothers, but it was known that they were

closely related and of the same generation. They were certainly

clan-brothers and possibly own brothers. The kinship names applied by

members of the three pòlm to one another were all in accordance with

this scheme; thus, there was no one living in these three pòlm whom

Siriar (20) called aia; he would have given this name to Nasidz or

Peratuthi if they had been alive. He calls Arthothi and Parkeidi anna;

they are the sons of Peratuthi, who was of the same generation as

Siriar’s father. The following are called mokh or ena:—Püldenir,

Keinodz, Idrshkwòdr (21), Polgar, Pundu, Keinmuv, and Pushtikudr (22),

although at least one of these men is older than Siriar, and several

others are approximately of the same age. Similarly, Muners (21) is the

mokh pedvai mokh, or grandson of Siriar.

The other three pòlm of the Taradr clan are known to be related in a

similar way: Kiusthvan (23), Pachievan (24), and Pungut (25) being

either own brothers or men closely related and of the same generation.

I was thus able to ascertain definitely how each member of the first

three pòlm knew the appropriate name to be given to members of these

families, and similarly how members of the other three pòlm knew the

exact terms of kinship to apply to one another.

Each member of the first three pòlm also knew, however, the proper

kinship terms to apply to members of the other three pòlm, although I

could not obtain, and there seemed to be no record of, the way in which

the two groups of families were connected. Thus Siriar addresses as aia

Paners and his brothers (23) and Irkiolv (24). He addresses as anna:

Teitukhen, Idjkudr and Kandu (23), Tòleidi, Nertiners, Mogai, Teimad

and Orguln (24), and Kudeners and his brother (25). The children of

these men are the mokh of Siriar, and are addressed by him as ena.

The explanation seems to be that the mode of relationship is handed

down from generation to generation; thus Teithi, the grandfather of

Siriar, called Kiusthvan (23) brother, and in consequence Ircheidi and

Paners, their sons, also call one another brother, and so Siriar, the

son of Ircheidi, knows that he has to call Paners father. In this way a

man would know the correct term to apply to every member of his clan,

though the links by which their pedigrees are connected may have been

completely forgotten.

I also worked out the relationship of the different divisions of the

Kuudr clan in the same way, and may perhaps give the record briefly.

Teitnir (52) calls the following Kuudr men aia:—Mutevan (52), Punatvan

(53), Keitas (55), Tüliners (56), Kiugi (57), Tütners, Etamudri, Madsu,

and Koboners (58), Ishkievan (60).

He calls the following anna:—Kuriolv and Ivievan (52), Targners (53),

Keinkursi (54), and Mudriners (57). The following are his nòdrved, and

are called by him enda:—Kwelthipush and his brothers, Piliar and Piliag

(52), Pungusivan, Tevò, Karov and Pòl (53), Pöteners (54), Sinar and

Katsog (55), Erai, Kil, Kanokh (56), Onadj and Kwòdrthotz (57), Kishkar

and Tormungudr (59). All the sons of these brothers are the mokh of

Teitnir.

In the above list Teitnir omitted Tikievan and Tushtkudr (56), who

according to the genealogies are his pia or grandfathers, while their

sons, though much younger than Teitnir, are his fathers, and are

addressed by him as aia.

The other kinship terms are used in the same wide way. If a man’s

mother belonged to Kuudr all those Kuudr men would be his mun who were

the an, egal, or nòdrved of his mother; and all the children of those

men would be his matchuni.

The terms used for the relatives of a wife are also used for the

corresponding relatives of a sedvaitazmokh. This is the name of the

woman in the Toda institution according to which a woman consorts with

one or more men in addition to her husband or husbands (see p. 526).

The man, or mokhthodvaiol, calls the fathers and brothers of the woman

paiol, and calls her father mun and her mother mumi.

Relatives are often spoken of by the Todas in a way that defines their

relation to the speaker more exactly than is usual in the

classificatory system. Thus, a man may call his brother’s son “en

nodrvedvain mokh”—“my younger brother’s son”; or he may speak of his

wife’s elder sister as “en kotvai akka,” an abbreviation of en kotvai

tan akka—“my wife her elder sister.” Similarly, a wife’s younger sister

may be called “en kotvai nòdrved.”

It seemed to me that the Todas afford an interesting example of a

people who are beginning to modify the classificatory system of kinship

in a direction which distinctly approaches the descriptive system. The

essential features of the system of kinship are those known as

classificatory, but the Todas have various means of distinguishing

between the near and distant relatives to whom the same kinship term is

applied. Two examples of this have already been given; the son of an

own sister may be called “my sister’s son,” while the son of a clan

sister is called “our sister’s son,” and the own brother of a mother is

simply called mun, while in the case of a clan brother of the mother,

the name of the man is added. Further, a term which is definitely

descriptive may be used in the examples quoted above.

The Todas have reached a stage of mental development in which it seems

that they are no longer satisfied with the nomenclature of a purely

classificatory system, and have begun to make distinctions in their

terminology for near and distant relatives.

Another point of interest about the Toda system is that the two sets of

kinship terms—those used in direct address and those used when speaking

of a relative—do not correspond closely with one another.

The terms used in direct address are few in number compared with the

kinship terms used when speaking of a relative. Brothers of all kinds,

matchuni and some paiol (brothers-in-law) are all addressed as anna,

egala or enda, according to age. Children, grandchildren, sisters’ sons

and sons-in-law are all addressed as ena. If exclusive attention were

paid to the kinship terms used in address we should seem to have a

kinship system which is almost wholly based on relative ages and

generations, all other distinctions being ignored.

The Toda system distinguishes widely between elder and younger members

of the family and clan. This feature, which is of very general

occurrence in connexion with the classificatory system, has been highly

developed by the Todas, and their system differs from any other with

which I am acquainted in having a special term for relatives of the

same age.

When two members of a clan or two men related in other ways address one

another as brother, the terms employed depend altogether on their

relative ages, and are not influenced by the relative seniority of the

branches of the family or clan to which they belong.

The Toda system appears to be closely related to that of the Dravidians

of Southern India. In several cases the names for certain kin are

identical with or closely resemble those of other South Indian

languages.

The three most characteristic features of the Toda system are (i.) the

use of the same term for mother’s brother and father-in-law, &c.; (ii.)

the marked development of vocative forms of the kinship terms; (iii.)

the marked development of distinctions according to age. These three

features are also found in Tamil, and as far as my information goes in

Telugu and Canarese. The Toda system appears to be a simplified form of

the Tamil system with many points of identity. The resemblance between

the Toda and the Tamil names seems certainly to be closer than that

between the Toda names and those of the Telugus and Canarese.

I do not wish here to consider these resemblances and differences in

any detail, but in the Table on the opposite page I have given a list

of those kinship terms in which the Todas resemble other inhabitants of

Southern India. The Tamil terms I owe to Mr. K. Rangachari of Madras;

the others I have taken from Morgan’s System of Consanguinity and

Affinity of the Human Race.

KINSHIP TABOOS

A man never mentions the name of his mun. If he wishes to make clear of

whom he is speaking he will give the name of the place at which his mun

lives, as “Tedshteiri ithvai en mun podchi,” “My uncle who lives at

Tedshteiri.” This restriction only applies to the own brothers of his

mother. Other more distant mun may be spoken of by name, and as we have

already seen, if a man wishes to make it clear of whom he is speaking,

he mentions the name in addition to the kinship term.

A man is also prohibited from uttering the name of the man from whom he

has received his wife—i.e., to whom he has done kalmelpudithti (see p.

502). This man, who is called the mokhudrtvaiol, is usually the father

of the wife and would normally be also a mun, but sometimes the place

of the mokhudrtvaiol is usurped by somebody else and in such a case

there might be no restriction on the name of the wife’s real father. In

the only case of this kind of which I have a record, the marriage of

Siriar (20) and Pupidz, the place of mokhudrtvaiol was taken by

Kuriolv, who was living with Pilimurg (7), the girl’s mother, and

though he was no real relative of the wife, Siriar might not mention

his name. In spite of the fact, however, that Kuriolv had become his

mokhudrtvaiol Siriar went privately to Patirsh (35), the real father of

his wife, and did kalmelpudithi and would also refrain from saying the

name of this man.

TODA. TAMIL. TELEGU. CANARESE.

Son mokh maghan

Elder brother an (anna) aṇṇan (aṇṇa) anna anna

Elder sister akkan (akka) akkal (akka) akka akka

Mother’s brother mun (mâmâ) amman or maman mena mava

(mama) mama

Father-in-law mun (mama) mamaner (mama) mama mava

Father’s sister mumi (mimia) attai

Wife of mother’s

brother mumi (mimia) ammami

Wife’s mother mumi (mimia) mamiyar

(ammami)

Sister’s son manmokh maruman or

marumakan

Mother’s matchuni maittunan (?)

brother’s son

Father’s matchuni attan or

sister’s son maittunan

Wife’s brother matchuni or machchinan or

paiol maittunan

A man is prohibited from saying the name of his wife’s mother (mumi),

but my notes do not make clear whether he is also prohibited from

saying the names of other mumi—i.e., father’s sisters, but probably

this is so. In any case this restriction only applies to near

relatives.

A man may not utter the name of his pian or piav.

There seemed to be some reluctance to say the name of a wife, but there

did not appear to be any definite prohibition against it. It was

probably part of a reluctance to utter personal names in general of

which the Todas show some traces, though it is less marked among them

than in the case of many uncultured people.

The taboo on names was far wider in the case of dead relatives. No one

was allowed to utter the name of a dead relative, and this rule

appeared to be especially stringent in the case of relatives who had

been older than the speaker. As I have already mentioned, this taboo

was for some time a great obstacle in my way when trying to obtain the

pedigrees of the people. If a man had to refer to a dead relative, he

did so by mentioning the name of the village at which he had died;

thus, if the father of a Taradr man had died at Taradr, the man would

say, “en in Taradr pon,” while, if he had died away from home, say at

Kuudr, he would refer to his father as “en in Kuudr odthavai,” “my

father who died at Kuudr.”

In the funeral lamentations, each mourner mentions the deceased by the

name indicating the bond of kinship between himself and the dead, and

does not utter the personal name.

KINSHIP SALUTATIONS

There are certain well-defined salutations which are regulated by

kinship.

The characteristic Toda salutation is called kalmelpudithti, in which

salutation one person kneels or bows down before another, while the

latter raises each foot and touches the forehead of the other. In

general this salutation is only paid by women to their elder male

relatives; a woman places her head beneath the foot of her pian, in,

an, or mun, using these terms in their widest sense. The salutation

seems to be very largely one connected with kinship. In everyday life

the salutation is only paid by women to men, but under special

circumstances, men may bow down before men, and women before women, and

men even may bow down before women (see p. 502).

Since, owing to the mokhthodvaiol connexion, a Tarthar woman may have a

Teivali mun and vice versa, the kalmelpudithti salutation takes place

between people of the two divisions, and I have often seen a woman of

one division placing her head beneath the foot of a man of the other

division.

When a person meets one of his kin, he uses a form of greeting which

depends on the nature of the relationship. Most of these greetings

consist of some form of the word iti or itvi, which was said to mean

“blessing” or “bless,” together with the kinship term.

A man would greet an elder brother or anyone whom he would call anna by

the word “tioñ,” cut very short so as to sound like a single syllable.

This is a corruption of iti anna. A person greets a younger brother or

one whom he would call enda by uttering his name followed by the word

ers, as in “Sakari ers,” “Pakhwar ers.” A father is greeted as itiai, a

mother as itiava. An elder sister as itiakka; a younger sister as

itvena, and this latter form is used for any female relative younger

than the speaker. It is the duty of younger female relatives to perform

the kalmelpudithti salutation, and as soon as a man says itvena, the

woman at once bows down and places her head beneath the raised foot of

the man, helping him to raise it at the same time.

A mother’s brother or father-in law (mun) is greeted by itimoñ and a

mumi is greeted by itimimia, but so slurred as to be hardly

recognisable. The grandfather and grandmother are greeted in the words

itin pia and itin piava.

Whenever a new Toda came to join people who were with me, there would

be a chorus of greetings, and the newcomer would look round carefully

to see who was present, giving to each his proper salutation and

obviously taking the greatest care that no one was overlooked. Since

the relationship of brother is the most frequent, the greetings heard

most often on these occasions were “tioñ” and “... ers.”

The regulation of salutation by kinship applies also to the salutation

of the dead. When the body first reaches the funeral place it is

saluted by all present, and in the case of kin, the mode of salutation

varies with the bond of kinship. Those related to the deceased as in,

av, pian, piav, mun, mumi, an, or akkan, bow down at the head of the

corpse and touch the body with their foreheads, while all those whom

the deceased would have called enda or ena bow down at the feet. The

place saluted by those who are not kin is determined by age, but in the

case of kin, the bond of kinship is more important than the age, so

that the former condition determines the mode of salutation. Thus at

the funeral of Kiuneimi (3), Kòdrner (7) saluted at the head of the

dead woman. He was the younger, but was her mun owing to the fact that

Kiuneimi’s step-mother Kureimi, was a Kars woman whom Kòdrner called

sister.

THE DUTIES OF KIN

The funeral ceremonies provide the greatest number of examples of

kinship duties, the parts taken by many of the mourners being

determined largely by their bonds of kinship to the deceased. The place

of chief mourner is taken by the brother or son of a dead man, by the

husband of a dead woman, and by the father of a dead child, though, at

the funeral of a girl, the husband plays the most important rôle.

Various duties fall to relatives of the same clan or of the same family

of the clan. The earth-throwing at the funeral of a male, the smearing

of butter on the buffalo, lighting the pyre at the first funeral and

the two fires at the azaramkedr, and ringing the bell at the final

scene, are all performed by near relatives of the same clan and family

as the deceased.

Cutting off a lock of hair and mixing food are acts performed by the

chief mourner, who is of the same clan as the deceased, whether

brother, son, husband, or father.

The manmokh, or sister’s son (who may be also son-in-law), has certain

definite duties. Formerly, when many buffaloes were killed, one was

always given by the sister’s son, and he still gives a thread cord,

called pennar. Many other relatives give these cords, but that given by

the manmokh is especially honoured in that it is put round the body of

the dead man inside his cloak, and not merely laid on the covering of

the body as are the others.

The mun does not appear to have any duties at a funeral, though in old

days he contributed a buffalo, and, at the present time, one of the two

buffaloes slaughtered may be given by the mun or other representative

of the mother’s family.

The matchuni (child of a maternal uncle or of a paternal aunt) has

several duties, of which the most important are those at the irsankati

ceremony of the azaramkedr. The other duties are the secondary result

of the marriage regulation which makes the matchuni the natural

bridegroom or bride, and, in consequence, it is the matchuni who

performs the pursütpimi ceremony at the funeral of an unmarried girl.

Similarly, the matchuni may take the place of a paiol at the

cloth-giving ceremony.

The duties which have, however, the greatest social interest are those

performed by the relatives by marriage. At the funeral of a woman

certain ceremonies, such as that in which leaves of the tiveri plant

are put in the dead woman’s armlet, the urvatpimi ceremony for an

unmarried girl, rubbing the relics, lighting the fire at the

azaramkedr, and burning the funeral hut, should be performed by the

daughter-in-law of a woman or the mother-in-law of a girl. These

relatives are, however, of the same clan as the deceased, owing to the

fact that a woman becomes a member of the same clan as her husband; and

I am therefore doubtful how far these relatives perform the duties in

question as members of the same clan, and how far as relatives by

marriage. Some of the duties, such as lighting the funeral fires, are

done by men of the same clan at the funeral of men; and I am therefore

inclined to believe that they are performed by a woman for this reason

and not because she is mother-in-law or daughter-in-law, but this point

is one which must remain indefinite with our present information.

Similarly the duty of covering the head is a little difficult to

understand. The head of a widower is covered (see p. 365) by one of his

paiol—his father-in-law or his brother-in-law—and in this case it is

clearly a duty which falls to a relative by marriage, but the head of a

widow is covered by her own father or by someone of his clan who takes

his place. The plausible explanation appears to be that the covering is

performed by the father of the woman, not as father of the widow, but

as father-in-law of the dead man.

Those who have married into the family of the deceased, the paiol, have

to make certain contributions towards the outlay for the funeral, and

it is in connexion with one of these contributions that the interesting

ceremony of cloth-giving occurs.

The essential feature of the ceremony seems to be that a cloth passes

between a relative or representative of the dead person and those who

have married into the family of the dead person, and the ceremony

involves a money payment to the family of the dead person from those

who have married into the family. The ceremony is one which links the

funeral ceremonies to those of marriage.

In other ceremonies of the Todas the parts played by different kin are

far less conspicuous. The mun or mother’s brother has, however, several

important functions. To him falls the duty of naming a child, on which

occasion he has also to give a calf. He takes the chief part in the

tersamptpimi ceremony, in which he cuts the hair of the child with a

special ritual. In the ear-piercing ceremony the maternal uncle pierces

one ear, and in the special case of which I have a record, he gave two

buffaloes towards the expenses attendant on the ceremony.

It is probable that a girl is named by her mumi, or father’s sister,

but this is a point on which I am not quite sure.

Under certain conditions matchuni, when associated together, have to

perform certain ceremonial acts. When two male matchuni eat rice and

milk together, they must first ask each other, “pa tòr tinkina?” “Milk

food shall I eat?” and if they eat honey together, they must say “tein

tinkina?” Two female matchuni eating together must also use these

formulæ, but they are not said when a man is eating in company with his

female matchuni, though possibly the two would never actually eat at

the same time.

Male matchuni have also to go through a ceremony when they pass in

company over either of the two sacred rivers of the Todas, the Paikara

(Teipakh) and the Avalanche (Pakhwar). As the two men approach the

river, they pluck and chew some grass, and each man says to the other

“pò tûdrikina, pò kudrikina?”—“Shall I throw the river (water), shall I

cross the river?” or, instead of the second sentence, they may say “pò

pûkhkina?”—“Shall I enter the river?” They then go to the side of the

river and each man dips his hand in the water and throws a handful away

from him three times and then they cross the river, each with the right

arm outside the cloak as is usual when crossing these sacred streams.

If the matchuni cross on a Tuesday, Friday or Saturday [200] they do

not throw water, but are content with chewing the grass, and if the

funeral ceremonies of a person belonging to the clan of either are not

complete the water will not be thrown.

This ceremony performed by matchuni when crossing a sacred river was

said to be connected with the legend given on p. 592, in which two

matchuni are concerned.

CHAPTER XXII

MARRIAGE

The custom of infant marriage is well established among the Todas, and

a child is often married when only two or three years of age. When a

man wishes to arrange a marriage for his son, he chooses a suitable

girl, who should be, and very often is, the matchuni of the boy, the

daughter of his mother’s brother or of his father’s sister. The father

visits the parents of the girl, and if the marriage is satisfactorily

arranged he returns home after staying for the night at the village. A

few days later the father takes the boy to the home of his intended

wife. They take with them the loin-cloth called tadrp as a wedding gift

and the boy performs the kalmelpudithti salutation to the father and

mother of the girl, and also to her brothers, both older and younger

than himself, and then gives the tadrp to the girl. Father and son stay

for one night at the girl’s village and return home on the following

morning. Sometimes the girl returns with them to the village of her

future husband, but, much more commonly, she remains at her own home

till she is fifteen or sixteen years of age.

If a man has not been married in childhood he may undertake the

arrangement of his marriage himself, and visit the parents of the girl

unaccompanied by his father; and in this case the girl may at once join

her husband if she is old enough.

From the time of the child-marriage the boy has to give a tadrp twice a

year until the girl is ten years old, when its place is taken by a

putkuli. The tadrp which is given at first is very small, worth perhaps

only four annas, but as the girl becomes older it is expected that the

garment shall become larger and more valuable.

If any member of the girl’s family should die it is expected that the

boy’s family shall on each occasion give a sum of eight annas or a

rupee. This gift is called tinkanik panm ûtpimi, or “we give a piece of

money to the purse.”

Formerly the boy’s family had also to contribute one of the buffaloes

killed at the funeral, but this custom is now obsolete. The

contribution of buffaloes and money from the boy to his parents-in-law

is called pödri. The boy has to take part in a ceremony at the funeral

in which a cloth is laid on the dead body, and with this ceremony there

is associated a further gift of one rupee, paid to the relatives of the

dead person by the family of the boy who has married into the family of

the deceased (see p. 358).

Certain ceremonies are performed shortly before the girl reaches the

age of puberty. One is called putkuli tâzâr utiti, or “mantle over he

puts,” in which a man belonging to the Tartharol if the girl is

Teivali, and to the Teivaliol if she is Tarthar, comes in the day-time

to the village of the girl and lying down beside her puts his mantle

over her so that it covers both and remains there for a few minutes.

Fourteen or fifteen days later a man of strong physique, who may belong

to either division and to any clan, except that of the girl, comes and

stays in the village for one night and has intercourse with the girl.

This must take place before puberty, and it seemed that there were few

things regarded as more disgraceful than that this ceremony should be

delayed till after this period. It might be a subject of reproach and

abuse for the remainder of the woman’s life, and it was even said that

men might refuse to marry her if this ceremony had not been performed

at the proper time.

It is usually some years later, when the girl is about fifteen or

sixteen, that she joins her husband and goes to live with him at his

village. The parents of the husband announce that they will fetch the

girl on a certain day, which must be one of two or three days of the

week, [201] different for each clan. The husband, accompanied by his

father and a male relative of the same clan, goes to the village of the

girl, and the three are feasted with rice and jaggery. The husband puts

five rupees into the pocket of the girl’s mantle and then takes her

home. There is no ceremony of any kind, not even the salutation such as

was performed at the original ceremony.

If the youth does not wish to live with the girl when the time arrives,

he may annul the marriage by giving one buffalo as a fine (kwadr) to

the girl’s parents; but, on the other hand, the parents of the girl

have to return as many buffaloes as he may have given as pödri at

funeral ceremonies.

If the girl refuses to join her husband the fine is heavier, and at the

present time usually amounts to five or ten buffaloes, the number being

settled by a council according to the circumstances of the people. The

girl’s family must also return any buffaloes given as pödri. According

to Harkness the fines were in his day much heavier; three buffaloes

when the man annulled the marriage, and as many as fifty when this was

done by the woman (see p. 538), and the Todas acknowledge that the fine

for refusing to fulfil the marriage contract is now lighter than it

used to be.

When a girl goes to join her husband she may be given clothing or

ornaments by her parents or brothers, and their gifts are known as

adrparn or dowry, but I could not learn that there were any definite

regulations prescribing what should be given. It seemed also that

occasionally buffaloes might be given as adrparn.

THE REGULATION OF MARRIAGE

The Todas have very definite restrictions on the freedom of individuals

to marry. One of the most important of these is that which prevents

intermarriage between the Tartharol and the Teivaliol. These groups are

endogamous divisions of the Toda people. Although a Teivali man is

strictly prohibited from marrying a Tarthar woman, he may take a woman

of this division to live with him at his village, the man being known

as the mokhthodvaiol of the woman. This connexion, which will be more

fully considered at the end of this chapter, may be regarded as a

recognised form of marriage, but it differs from the orthodox form in

that the children of the union belong to the division of the mother.

They do not, however, belong to her clan, but to that of her legal

husband. Similarly, the same kind of connexion may be formed between a

Tarthar man and a Teivali woman, but in this case the woman is not

allowed to live at the village of the mokhthodvaiol, who may either

visit her occasionally or go to live at her village.

It has already been mentioned that each of the two divisions of the

Toda community is divided into a number of septs or clans, and these

are definite exogamous groups. No man or woman may marry a member of

his or her own clan, but must marry into another clan. This restriction

applies even to the members of clans which are known to have separated

from one another in recent times. Thus, among the Tartharol certain

members of the Melgarsol separated from the main group, and their

descendants have formed a separate group or groups known as the

Kidmadol and Karshol (see p. 664), but although the separation took

place many years ago there still remains a definite prohibition against

a marriage of members of these clans with the Melgars people. The clans

of Pedrkars and Kulhem among the Teivaliol are offshoots of the

Kuudrol, but here the separation seems to have occurred so long ago

that the common origin is not regarded as a bar to marriage.

In the whole of the genealogical record given in the tables at the end

of the volume there is not a single case in which marriage has occurred

between two members of the same clan.

Among many races at or below the stage of culture of the Todas

prohibition of marriage within the clan is usually accompanied by

prohibition of sexual intercourse, and such intercourse is regarded as

incest and often as the greatest of crimes. It is doubtful whether

there is any such strict prohibition among the Todas. In the qualifying

ceremony for the office of palol known as tesherst, it is ordained that

the woman who takes part in the ceremony shall be one who has never had

intercourse with one of her own clan, and I was told that it was far

from easy to find such a woman. The fact, however, that this

restriction should exist in connexion with a ceremony suggests that

even to the Todas there is something reprehensible in intercourse

between man and woman of the same clan (see also p. 530).

There are certain special prohibitions against marriage between members

of certain clans. Among the Tartharol the Panol are not allowed to

marry the Kanòdrsol, a prohibition said to be due to the murder of

Parden by Kwoten, and it is said that since that day no marriage has

ever taken place between the clans of the two men. In the genealogical

record there is no case in which these two clans have intermarried.

I was also told that the people of Melgars and Kwòdrdoni might not

intermarry, but there are three examples of such marriages in the

genealogies. I could not obtain any reason for the restriction, and the

information is probably incorrect. The restrictions on marriage between

the people of Melgars and those of Kidmad and Karsh have already been

considered.

Among the Teivaliol there are also prohibitions against intermarriage

between certain clans. The people of Piedr may not marry those of

Kusharf. Judging from the genealogical record, the prohibition is not

strictly followed, for three such marriages have taken place in recent

times. In one of these cases, however, in which a Piedr man married a

Kusharf woman, the woman soon became seriously ill, and the marriage

was annulled. I could obtain no reason for the prohibition of marriage

between these two clans. Marriage was also prohibited between the

Piedrol and the Pedrkarsol, this being due to a comparatively recent

quarrel between members of the two clans, of which an account is given

in Chapter XXVIII.

I have analysed the genealogical records with the view of ascertaining

whether certain clans intermarry with any special frequency. Among the

Tartharol, I find that the people of Nòdrs marry most frequently those

of Kars and Taradr. The Karsol, the largest of the Tarthar clans,

distribute their marriages widely over the whole Tarthar division. The

Panol chiefly marry with Kars and Melgars. The Taradrol have married

most often with Nòdrs, Kars and Melgars. Keradr, a very small clan,

shows no special predilection. The people of Kanòdrs have intermarried

most often with Kwòdrdoni, Päm, Kars and Melgars. The people of

Kwòdrdoni marry most often people of Kanòdrs, Kars and Nidrsi. The

Pämol have married chiefly with Kanòdrs, Kars and Melgars. Most of the

Nidrsi marriages have been with Kars. The Melgarsol have married in

fairly equal proportions people of Nòdrs, Kars, Taradr and Päm.

These facts are interesting in that they show that there is a tendency

for the three clans of Nòdrs, Kars and Taradr to intermarry. These are

not only the most important Tarthar clans, but they occupy the same

district of the hills, in the centre and towards the north and

north-west. Similarly, the clans of Kanòdrs, Kwòdrdoni and Päm,

situated towards the north-east and east, show a distinct tendency to

intermarry. Further, the Melgarsol, who form a special group standing

somewhat apart from the rest, distribute their marriages fairly

equally, but have often married with Päm, a clan seated near them

geographically.

The analysis of the genealogies shows that the geographical

distribution of the Tartharol on the hills has had a definite influence

on the intermarriage of the different clans.

Among the Teivaliol, intermarriage has been greatly influenced by the

enormous size of the Kuudrol as compared with the other clans of the

division. In order to marry outside their own clan, the people of Kuudr

have married nearly all the available members of the other clans of the

Teivaliol, leaving very few to intermarry with one another. Thus the

genealogies record 161 marriages between Kuudrol and members of the

other five Teivali clans, leaving only sixteen marriages between the

members of those five clans. Owing to the enormous development of one

clan, the Teivali division has almost come to be in the position of a

community with a dual marrying organisation in which every member of

one group must marry a member of the other group, but there is no

reason whatever to think that this is due to any other reason than the

excessive development of one clan in numbers.

On studying the marriages in detail, it is found that the Kuudrol have

married members of the Piedr clan most frequently, but this is chiefly

because the Piedrol stand second to the Kuudrol in point of numbers,

although it is also furthered by the restriction in marriage between

Piedr and Kusharf. The marriages of the Kuudrol with other clans seem

to be determined more by the numbers available than by any predilection

for special clans.

Both Pedrkars and Kulhem are said to be offshoots of the Kuudrol, but

apparently the separation is so remote that the common origin is not

regarded as a bar to marriage. It is possible that the necessity of

providing spouses for the Kuudrol has tended to break down a

restriction which probably once existed.

The Todas have never married people outside their own community, and a

strong prejudice against such marriages still exists. This may be

illustrated by two recent cases.

A woman, married in the usual way, was divorced by her husband because

she became ill. She returned to her own home, where she was visited by

a Tamil blacksmith. The latter was very anxious to marry the woman and

on one occasion took her away to the plains, but she was followed by

her relatives and brought back to her home. Later she married two Toda

brothers and was taken by them to their village, but she was followed

by the blacksmith, who brought her back to the village of her parents.

The Todas seem to have no strong objection to her relations with the

stranger so long as she remains among themselves.

In the other case a woman about twelve years ago was visited by a rich

Mohammedan who gave money to her husbands, and it was said also that he

bribed the chief Toda people, i.e., the members of the council. The

Mohammedan wished very much to marry the woman and for a sum of money

the Todas consented. After the woman had lived for a few days in the

bazaar with her new husband, her relatives came and took her away, and

I was told that the Mohammedan took the loss so much to heart that he

died of grief, but my informants were doubtful whether his grief was

due to the loss of his wife or whether it was because he had

impoverished himself by the bribes which he had given. Here again the

people appear to have had no objection to the relations of the woman

with the Mohammedan so long as she remained in the community.

KINSHIP AND MARRIAGE

The members of his own clan are not the only kin whom a man is not

allowed to marry. The Todas have a general term, püliol, for those

relatives whose intermarriage is prohibited. The term is applied by a

man not only to the women whom he may not marry, but also to the

families in general into which he may not marry; thus a man may speak

of other men as his püliol, meaning by this that he may not marry their

sisters. This, however, is only a loose way of using the word, and,

putting on one side this sense in which the word may be used, the

following are the püliol of a man:—

(i.) The daughters of his father’s brothers, whom he would call akka or

enda, according to age.

(ii.) The daughters of his mother’s sisters, also akka or enda.

(iii.) The sisters of his father and conversely the daughters of his

sisters, i.e., his mumi and his mankugh.

(iv.) The daughters of the sisters of his father’s father, i.e., of the

sisters of his pian.

The relatives under the first head will be members of the same clan as

the man, and the prohibition of marriage between püliol under this head

may be regarded as a restriction dependent on either clanship or

kinship.

There seemed to be no doubt, however, that in connexion with marriage,

a man always thought of these relatives as püliol, a term which denotes

certain kin, to whatever clan they may belong. So far as I could

ascertain, if a man thought of a given woman, he thought of her as one,

or not one, of his püliol, and it seemed to me in several cases as if

it came almost as a new idea to some of the Todas that his püliol

included all the people of his own clan.

If I am right in this, it means that it is the bond of blood-kinship

which a Toda has chiefly in his mind when he considers whether he may

or may not marry a given woman. He has not two kinds of prohibited

affinity, one depending on clan relations, and another on relations of

blood-kinship, but he has only one kind of prohibited affinity, to

which he gives the general term püliol, including certain kin through

the father and certain kin through the mother, and there is no evidence

that he considers the bond of kinship in one case as different from the

other as regards restriction on marriage.

The fact that the Toda includes all those kin whom he may not marry

under one general term, and that the kin in question include members

both of his own and other clans, goes to show that the Todas recognise

the blood-kinship as the restrictive agency rather than the bond

produced by membership of the same clan.

The analysis of the genealogical record has shown that these

restrictions on marriage are enforced. I have already stated that the

genealogies show no single case in which marriage has occurred between

members of the same clan, i.e., between püliol who come under the first

head in the list given above.

I have also failed to find a single case in which marriage has taken

place between the children of two own sisters, or of marriage between

the children of two women who would call each other “sister” whose

names occur in the same genealogical table. Thus I have found no case

in which a marriage has taken place between the children of two women

so closely related to one another as Punzueleimi and Nasturs, of Table

3, these women being first cousins according to our system of kinship.

It would be a prolonged task to ascertain whether marriage ever takes

place among the Tartharol between the children of two clan-sisters in

the widest sense, and I do not know whether such marriage may not

sometimes occur.

Among the Teivaliol marriages between clan-sisters even in the widest

sense must be very rare owing to the fact that nearly all marriages

take place between people of Kuudr on the one hand and members of the

five other Teivali clans on the other. Since in most cases two women of

any one of these five clans marry men of Kuudr, marriage between their

children would be restricted under the first prohibition, and similarly

the children of two Kuudr women could only intermarry in those cases in

which members of the other five clans have married one another. Among

the Teivaliol, I do not believe that marriages take place between the

children of sisters in the widest sense, and I have little doubt that

they are very exceptional among the Tartharol.

There is no case in the genealogies in which the third restriction has

been broken, in which a man has married his father’s sister or his

sister’s daughter, his mumi or his maukugh.

There is at least one case in the genealogies in which there has been

an infringement of the fourth restriction given on page 509. The

marriage of Nargudr (62) with Tolveli (58) is an example of the

marriage of a man with the daughter of his grandfather’s sister. I

believe that this restriction is part of a wider regulation. Using Toda

terms of kinship the law would run: a person must not marry the child

of his matchuni. The marriage of a man with the daughter of his

grandfather’s sister, such as that of Nargudr with Tolveli, would be an

infringement of this law. I have only found one other case in the

genealogies in which this law would have been broken, i.e., in the

marriage of Teitnir (52) and Tersveli (63). Tersveli’s father, Teikudr,

is the son of Kavani, the sister of Pareivan, Teitnir’s father. Teikudr

is therefore the matchuni of Teitnir, who has married his daughter.

I was told that though a man might not marry the daughter of his

sister, he might marry the children of this woman. I do not know of any

such marriage and it is improbable that it would often come about,

since it would involve the marriage of a woman with the brother of her

grandfather. There is, however, at the present time an example of the

marriage of a woman with her father’s mother’s brother, whom she would

therefore call pia, or grandfather. This is the marriage of Kaners and

his brother Kudrievan (63) with Edjog (56), the daughter of Tüliners,

the son of the sister of the two men. I was told, however, that this

marriage met with a good deal of disapproval among the Todas, but I

could not learn that there was any definite prohibition against it.

THE MARRIAGE OF MATCHUNI

While marriage with the daughter of a father’s brother and a mother’s

sister is prohibited, the daughter of a father’s sister or a mother’s

brother is the natural wife of a man. The orthodox marriage is marriage

between matchuni, the children of brother and sister. Thus it is

obviously not nearness of blood-kinship in itself which acts as a

restriction on marriage, but nearness of blood-kinship of a certain

kind.

I have analysed the genealogies to ascertain the frequency with which

marriages between matchuni occur. The genealogical tables record about

550 marriages, of which 373 are Tarthar and 177 Teivali. Only a small

proportion of these are marriages between children of own brother and

sister. Among the Tartharol there are 40 and among the Teivaliol 25

such marriages, making together 65 or 11·8 per cent.

Since, however, the matchuni of a man include a much wider circle of

relatives than the children of his mother’s own brother and father’s

own sister, the number of marriages between matchuni is very much

larger than this.

Nearly all the Teivali marriages are marriages between matchuni in this

wider sense, while among the Tartharol there are also many other

marriages of this kind.

One of the reasons why the orthodox marriage custom is not still more

commonly followed is the existence of the practice called terersthi, to

be considered later in this chapter. According to this practice wives

are transferred from one man to another, and in this transference no

attention appears to be paid to the kinship tie. The woman, or rather

girl, originally married to a man may have been his matchuni, but the

woman who finally becomes his wife by the working of the terersthi

custom may not be and probably in most cases is not his matchuni. In

many cases in the genealogies, the original infant marriage may have

been forgotten, and the marriage recorded may be the result of the

terersthi custom. If I had a complete record of all infant marriages, I

have no doubt that the proportion of marriages between matchuni would

have been larger.

In some families marriages between matchuni in the near sense occur

much more frequently than in others. Thus out of the forty matchuni

marriages among the Tartharol, the husband or wife belonged to the

Taradrol in fifteen cases, and in one large Taradr family, that of

Parkeidi (21), six out of eight children married their matchuni in the

near sense. It is perhaps significant in this connexion that the

Taradrol have been comparatively little affected by outside influences.

They are a clan which might be expected to keep up the orthodox Toda

custom.

Another example of a family in which the orthodox marriage custom has

been frequently followed is that of Table 52, where there may be found

eight cases of the marriage of matchuni in the near sense, and several

others where the matchuni relationship is more distant.

In some cases marriages have taken place between the children of

matchuni. Thus the marriage of Uvolthli (15) with Sinmundeivi (20)

among the Tartharol, and of Pangudr (66) with Nelbur (54) and Kanokh

(56) with Sanmidz (63) among the Teivaliol, are all cases in which

marriages have taken place between the children of two men who called

one another matchuni. There may be other cases, but these examples are

perhaps sufficient to show that these marriages may be held to take the

place of the orthodox matchuni union.

While marriages between matchuni are the rule and marriages between the

children of matchuni certainly not unlawful, we have seen that marriage

with the child of a matchuni is prohibited. From our point of view,

this means that while marriage with a first cousin is orthodox,

marriage with a first cousin once removed is unlawful, while again it

seems that marriage with a first cousin twice removed may be lawful.

The more distant tie of kinship from our point of view is unlawful,

while the nearer is commanded.

Marriage with a matchuni may often involve considerable disproportion

of age. In one case at the present time a boy of about two years of age

is married to a woman of about twenty. The woman, Nulnir (10), was

still unmarried when she reached this age, so she was married to her

matchuni, Kagerikutan (25), the son of her mother’s brother. In this

case the orthodox marriage was resorted to when the woman had failed to

obtain a husband in any other way, although it involved marriage with a

baby.

In another case, the marriage of Keitkarg (38) and Pötoveli (49), in

which the woman is considerably older than her husband, the husband and

wife are matchuni.

There is one ceremonial marriage in which the husband always stands in

the relation of matchuni to the wife. This is in the performance of the

pursütpimi ceremony at the funeral of a girl unmarried at the time of

her death. The boy who is chosen to give the bow and arrow and to act

as the husband is always, so far as I could discover, the matchuni of

the dead girl.

Similarly, if an unmarried boy dies, the girl who is chosen to act as

his widow should be his matchuni. In one case of which I have a record,

the son of Tütners (58) died and Sotidz (66) was chosen to act as

widow. None of the brothers of Puvizveli (65), the mother of the dead

boy, had at that time a son, so the duty was undertaken by the daughter

of Pangudr, of the same clan as Puvizveli, but belonging to a different

family. In this case the matchuni was the daughter of a clan-brother

because there was no nearer matchuni available.

Keinba, who acted as husband at the funeral of Sinerani (see p. 394),

was the matchuni of the dead girl in two ways, as the son of her

mother’s brother and as the son of her father’s half-sister.

A matchuni may be either the child of a mother’s brother or of a

father’s sister, and I have examined the genealogies to see if a man

marries the daughter of his mother’s brother or of his father’s sister

the more frequently, and find that there is no great difference, though

the former marriage is somewhat the more frequent. There are among the

Tartharol twenty cases in which a man has married the daughter of his

mother’s brother, two of marriage with the daughter of a stepmother’s

brother, and one with the daughter of a stepmother’s half-brother,

making twenty-three cases in all. On the other hand, a man married the

daughter of his father’s sister in fourteen cases, twice he married the

daughter of his father’s half-sister, and once the stepdaughter of his

father’s sister, making seventeen cases in all.

Among the Teivaliol marriages with the daughter of a father’s sister

are the more frequent, there being fifteen of these as compared with

ten cases of marriage with the daughter of a mother’s brother. There is

evidently no special preference for either kind of marriage.

POLYANDRY

The Todas have a completely organised and definite system of polyandry.

When a woman marries a man, it is understood that she becomes the wife

of his brothers at the same time. When a boy is married to a girl, not

only are his brothers usually regarded as also the husbands of the

girl, but any brother born later will similarly be regarded as sharing

his older brothers’ rights.

In the vast majority of polyandrous marriages at the present time, the

husbands are own brothers. A glance through the genealogies will show

the great frequency of polyandry, [202] and that in nearly every case

the husbands are own brothers. In a few cases in which the husbands are

not own brothers, they are clan-brothers, i.e., they belong to the same

clan and are of the same generation. Instances of such marriages are

those of Toridz (65) with Kulpakh (52) and Kiladrvan (60), and of

Sintharap (68) with Kuriolv (52) and Ònadj (57).

There is only one instance recorded in the genealogies in which a woman

had at the same time husbands belonging to different clans, viz., the

marriage of Kwelvtars (60) with Nidshtevan of Piedr (64) and Tütners of

Kusharf (67), and in this case the men were half-brothers by the same

mother, the fathers being of different clans. While I was on the hills,

there was a project on foot that three unmarried youths belonging to

three different clans should have a wife in common, but the project was

frustrated and the marriage did not take place.

It is possible that at one time the polyandry of the Todas was not so

strictly ‘fraternal’ as it is at present, and it is perhaps in favour

of this possibility that in the instance of polyandry given by Harkness

[203] the husbands were obviously not own brothers. It must be

remembered, however, that this case came to the notice of Captain

Harkness because the polyandry had led to disputes, and, as we shall

see shortly, it is in those cases of polyandry in which the husbands

are not own brothers that disputes arise.

The arrangement of family life in the case of a polyandrous marriage

differs according as the husbands are, or are not, own brothers.

In the former case it seemed that there is never any difficulty, and

that disputes never arise. The brothers live together, and my

informants seemed to regard it as a ridiculous idea that there should

ever be disputes or jealousies of the kind that might be expected in

such a household. When the wife becomes pregnant, the eldest brother

performs the ceremony of giving the bow and arrow, but the brothers are

all equally regarded as the fathers of the child. If one of the

brothers leaves the rest and sets up an establishment of his own, it

appeared, however, that he might lose his right to be regarded as the

father of the children.

If a man is asked the name of his father, he usually gives the name of

one man only, even when he is the offspring of a polyandrous marriage.

I endeavoured to ascertain why the name of one father only should so

often be given, and it seemed to me that there is no one reason for the

preference. Often one of the fathers is more prominent and influential

than the others, and it is natural in such cases that the son should

speak of himself as the son of the more important member of the

community. Again, if only one of the fathers of a man is alive, the man

will always speak of the living person as his father; thus Siriar (20)

always spoke of Ircheidi as his father, and even after Ircheidi is

dead, it seems probable that he will so have fallen into the custom of

speaking of the latter as his father that he will continue to do so,

and it will only be when his attention is especially directed to the

point that he will say that Madbeithi was also his father.

In most of the genealogies, the descent is traced from some one man,

but there can be no doubt whatever that this man was usually only one

of several brothers, and the probable reason why one name only is

remembered is that this name was that of an important member of the

community, or of the last surviving of the brother-husbands.

When the husbands are not own brothers, the arrangements become more

complicated. When the husbands live together as if they were own

brothers there is rarely any difficulty. If, on the other hand, the

husbands live at different villages, the usual rule is that the wife

shall live with each husband in turn, usually for a month at a time,

but there is very considerable elasticity in the arrangement.

It is in respect of the ‘fatherhood’ [204] of the children in these

cases of non-fraternal polyandry that we meet with the most interesting

feature of Toda social regulations. When the wife of two or more

husbands (not own brothers) becomes pregnant, it is arranged that one

of the husbands shall perform the ceremony of giving the bow and arrow.

The husband who carries out this ceremony is the father of the child

for all social purposes; the child belongs to the clan of this husband

if the clans of the husbands differ and to the family of this husband

if the families only differ. When the wife again becomes pregnant,

another husband may perform the pursütpimi ceremony, and if so, this

husband becomes the father of the child; but more commonly the

pursütpimi ceremony is not performed at all during the second

pregnancy, and in this case the second child belongs to the first

husband, i.e., to the husband who has already given the bow and arrow.

Usually it is arranged that the first two or three children shall

belong to the first husband, and that at a succeeding pregnancy (third

or fourth), another husband shall give the bow and arrow, and, in

consequence, become the father not only of that child, but of all

succeeding children till some one else gives the bow and arrow.

The fatherhood of a child depends entirely on the pursütpimi ceremony,

so much so that a dead man is regarded as the father of a child if no

other man has performed the essential ceremony. [205]

In the only case in the genealogies in which the husbands of a woman

were of different clans, it happened there were only two children, and

that one father gave the bow and arrow for the first child and the

other for the second.

If the husbands separate, each husband takes with him those children

who are his by virtue of the pursütpimi ceremony.

There is no doubt whatever as to the close association of the polyandry

of the Todas with female infanticide. As we have seen, the Todas now

profess to have completely given up the practice of killing their

female children, but it is highly probable that the practice is still

in vogue to some extent. It has certainly, however, diminished in

frequency, and the consequent increase in the proportion of women is

leading to some modification in the associated polyandry.

It has been stated by most of those who have written about the Todas

that the custom of polyandry is dying out, but a glance at the

genealogies will show that the institution is in full working order

even in the case of the infant marriages which are being contracted at

the present time. There is, however, some reason to believe that it is

now less frequent for all the brothers of a family to have one wife

only in common. A study of the genealogies shows that often each

brother has his own wife, or that several brothers have more than one

wife between them. It seemed to me, however, almost certain that in

these cases the brothers have the wives in common. In compiling the

genealogies, one informant would give me the names of two or more

brothers each with one wife, while another would give me the name of

one brother with two or three wives, and would say that the other

brothers had the same wives. When I pointed out the discrepancy and

asked which was the true account, they usually said it made no

difference and were almost contemptuous because I seemed to think that

there was any disagreement between the two versions. I think it

probable that it has become less frequent for several brothers to have

only one wife in common, but I am very doubtful whether this indicates

any real decrease in the prevalence of polyandry.

It seems to me that the correct way of describing the present condition

of Toda society is to say that polyandry is as prevalent as ever, but

that owing to the greater number of women, it is becoming associated

with polygyny. When there are two brothers it does not seem that each

takes a wife for himself, but rather that they take two wives in

common.

It is probable that this will lead in time to a state of society in

which each brother will come to regard one wife as his own; and in a

few cases it seemed to me that there was already a tendency in this

direction. If this forecast should be fulfilled, the custom of monogamy

among the Todas will have been developed out of polyandry through a

stage of combined polyandry and polygyny.

One case happened during my visit which seemed to indicate that though

several brothers might be regarded as husbands of a woman, the part of

husband for ceremonial purposes might be taken only by one or two of

them. In this case I was told that four brothers had one wife, but when

the wife died only two of the brothers acted as widowers and performed

the ceremonies associated with that condition. When I asked for an

explanation of this, I was then told that the other two brothers were

not husbands, but I strongly suspected that this was a mere device to

enable two of the brothers to avoid the disabilities attendant on the

condition of widowerhood. I have very little doubt that while the woman

was alive, all the four brothers were her husbands, but after her death

it became convenient to assume that only two had been husbands, leaving

the others free from the restrictions of widowerhood.

Many writers have believed that the widely spread custom of the

Levirate is a relic of polyandry. If it were true that the custom of

polyandry is dying out among the Todas, this people might have provided

material for the study of the relations of polyandry and the Levirate.

It will be obvious, however, from the account already given, that

polyandry is still strongly established among the Todas. Still, there

are a few cases in the genealogies which seem to show that when two

brothers had different wives, and one brother died, the widow might be

taken by the surviving brother. Thus, in Table 34, two brothers,

Matovan and Kemners, had one wife, Sargveli, while Atcharap had his own

wife, Puners. When Matovan died, Sargveli was regarded as the wife of

both Atcharap and Kemners. [206] Again, after the deaths of Mulpolivan

and Peigvan (3), the widow of Nersveli was married by Perol, the

clan-brother (first cousin) of the husband.

In other cases, the widow of one brother has not become the wife of her

husband’s brothers, but has married elsewhere; and though the evidence

is necessarily very unsatisfactory, it seems on the whole probable that

the Todas show no special relation between polyandry and the Levirate

custom.

If the widow marries a man who is not one of the brothers of her dead

husband, the new husband has to pay a certain number of buffaloes. He

does not, however, give these buffaloes to the brothers of the dead

man, but to his children; thus, when Karnisi of Päm (37) died, his

widow, Nersaveli, married Mutthuvan (34) of Kanòdrs, who paid fourteen

buffaloes to Pungievan, the son of Karnisi. This payment of buffaloes

is known as terkudrichti, “compensation he gives,” and it is the custom

for the number of buffaloes in this case to be twice the number given

by the dead man for his wife; in this case Karnisi had taken Nersaveli

from another man for seven buffaloes.

In relation to the Levirate, the important point here is that the

buffaloes are paid to the sons of the dead husbands, not to his

brothers.

I do not think that the Todas provide any definite evidence towards the

solution of the vexed question of the relation between polyandry and

infanticide. It is possible that at their first arrival in the Nilgiri

Hills, the Todas had few sources of food, and had a severe struggle for

existence; that they therefore adopted the practice of female

infanticide, and that polyandry followed as a consequence. At the

present and during recent times there has certainly been no economical

motive for infanticide, and I am very doubtful whether it has ever

existed. I think it far more probable that the Todas brought the

practice of polyandry with them when they came to the Nilgiris; but if

this view should be adopted, there is still no evidence to show whether

they also brought infanticide with them, or whether this custom

developed owing to the fact that polyandry diminished the need for

female children.

POLYGYNY

In the last section we have seen that there is a tendency for the

polyandry of the Todas to become combined with polygyny. Two brothers,

who in former times would have had one wife between them, may now take

two wives, but as a general rule the two men have the two wives in

common. In addition, polygyny of the more ordinary kind exists among

the Todas, and is probably now increasing in frequency, as one of the

results of the diminished female infanticide.

One example of polygyny is the marriage of Kuriolv (56) with two wives,

one of about the same age as himself, the other a young wife whom he

shares with Onadj (57). In another case Odrkurs (1), has two wives, the

second wife being a young girl recently married in the hope of

obtaining a son (see p. 550).

There is one example of polygyny in the genealogies in which a young

boy, Mokudr of Nidrsi (42), has two wives, both young girls. He has

been doubly married in order that he may get rid of one of his wives by

the terersthi custom and so become rich. He has been married to two

wives in order that he may sell one.

When a man or a group of men have more than one wife, the two wives

usually live together at the same village, but sometimes they live at

different villages, the husband or husbands moving about from one

village to the other.

EXCHANGE OF BROTHER AND SISTER

Although I was not told that it was the custom for a brother and sister

of one clan to marry a sister and brother of another, examination of

the genealogies makes it clear that this frequently happens. A good

example which may be cited is the marriage of Kuriolv (52) with

Punaveli (65), while Sinkòrs, the sister of Kuriolv, married the three

brothers of Punaveli. Two other similar instances may be found in Table

52, and they are of general occurrence throughout the genealogies.

In some communities this custom of exchange is definitely connected

with the bride-price, which may be so large as almost to compel a man

to give his sister in exchange for the wife he takes from another clan.

In the case of the Todas the bride-price is so inconsiderable that it

is unlikely that it would form a motive for exchange, and I think it

improbable that in such marriages as those cited above, the idea of

exchange is even definitely formulated, but that the combination of

marriages comes about for such obvious reasons as may occur in any

community. The marriage of matchuni, if widely practised, would

obviously lead to an appearance of exchange, and it may be that among

the Todas this is the chief cause of its occurrence.

Similarly, instances will be found in the genealogies of two brothers

(or two groups of brothers) marrying sisters. An example may be given

from Table 53, where Orzevan marries one woman and his two brothers

marry her sister. Another instance may be found in Table 58.

In several cases in which a man or group of men have had two wives, the

wives have been related. Thus, Kutthurs (12) and his brothers first

married Tedjveli (16). After her death, Kutthurs, the only surviving

brother, married Sabnir (34), the daughter of Arsner, Tedjveli’s

sister. Again, Paners (23) and his brothers first married Pergveli, and

when she died they married her brother’s daughter. Pungusivan (53)

married his matchuni, Sinodz (68), and when she was taken from him by

the terersthi custom, he married Sintharap, her sister.

There is often very great disproportion of age in Toda marriages. I

have already given two cases in which the woman is the older, in each

of which the disproportion of age is due to the custom of marrying a

matchuni. More commonly the man is much the older, and there are at the

present time many cases in which elderly men are married to young

girls. This is partly due to the practice of infant marriage. Unless a

widower can take advantage of the terersthi custom, which is always

expensive, he may have to marry a child and wait till she has reached a

marriageable age. Thus, Kòdrner, my guide, lost his wife some years

ago, and then married a girl whose present [207] age is only thirteen,

Kòdrner being forty-two. The girl is still living with her parents, and

will probably not go to her husband for another three or four years.

THE CUSTOM OF ‘TERERSTHI’

The marriage tie among the Todas at the present time has become very

loose. Wives are constantly transferred from one husband, or group of

husbands, to another, the new husband or husbands paying a certain

number of buffaloes to the old. The amount of the compensation or ter

is settled by a council, and from this the transaction has received its

name of terersthi, or “compensation he tells (decides).” [208]

There is much reason to believe that this custom has altered its

character in recent times. I was told that formerly the custom only

applied to cases in which a man had lost his wife by death. If he

wished to marry a woman who was already the wife of another or others,

he went to the father of the woman and asked for his consent. The

father would consult with two other elders, and if they were in favour

of the proposed transaction the three elders would go to the woman, and

if they obtained her consent they then went to her husband for his. If

husband or wife were unwilling to be parted nothing was done, but if

both consented, the new and the old husband, the father of the woman,

and the two elders met and decided on the number of buffaloes to be

given as ter or compensation. This meeting was called terersthi. The

ter had to be paid within a month, and all the buffaloes given had to

be females. The man who was giving up the woman went to the village of

the new husband and received his buffaloes, of which he was allowed to

choose a certain number. If he had been awarded more than four

buffaloes, he might choose three, if four or less, he might only choose

two. Among the Tartharol, a man would usually choose wursulir, and

among the Teivaliol, pasthir.

At the present time the number of buffaloes given as ter varies very

greatly; the most frequent number is three, but often more are given,

and in one case, about ten years ago, a man had to give twenty-five.

The number seems to depend largely on the size of the herd possessed by

the man taking a new wife. The more buffaloes he has, the more he has

to pay.

When the buffaloes are given, the new husband has to give a feast,

after which the old husband drives away his buffaloes. In a recent case

Teigudr of Nòdrs (4) had taken Uwer from Nertolvan and Palpa of Pan

(16) for nine buffaloes. These two men went to the village of

Tedshteiri, where Teigudr was living, and were feasted, the food being

cooked on nine ovens, corresponding to the number of the buffaloes.

This correspondence between the number of the ovens and of the

buffaloes given as ter, suggests that there may have been some definite

ceremonial in connexion with this feast of which I failed to obtain an

account.

The custom of terersthi has some reason on its side. Wherever infant

marriage exists in a small community, it must often happen that a

widower finds all the women of his community married, and without some

machinery by which he is allowed to take the wife of another, he must

remain unmarried or be content with marriage to a mere child. Even at

the present time, we have seen that an adult man who has lost his wife

may marry a girl only a few years of age. [209]

At the present time the custom of terersthi has a far wider range. It

is obvious that when a widower takes the wife of another he is simply

transferring his difficulty, and the man whose wife he has taken will

have to seek a new partner. It often happens that a man takes the wife

of a boy married, perhaps, to a girl of about the same age as himself,

and when this boy reaches manhood he will have to seek a wife and will

naturally try to obtain the wife of another rather than be content with

a child perhaps only three or four years of age. It would be impossible

that such a custom as that of terersthi should remain limited in scope,

but there is no doubt that at the present day it has become the custom

for any man who takes a fancy for the wife of another to endeavour to

obtain her for himself, and I was told that he would give large bribes

to the elders of the Todas to attain his object. It seems quite clear

that, at the present time, it is not considered necessary to obtain the

consent either of the wife or of the husband, and in some cases the

wife has been taken from her husband by force. [210]

In some recent cases the aggrieved parties in such disputes have

appealed to the Government, and during my visit a petition was being

drawn up for presentation to the Governor of Madras, asking that the

abuses of the terersthi custom should be remedied.

DIVORCE

Divorce exists among the Todas quite apart from the transference of

wives just considered.

I was told that a man divorces his wife for two reasons, and for two

only, the first reason being that the wife is a fool and the second

that she will not work. Barrenness is not generally regarded as a

reason for divorce, though I was told of one case in which a man had

sent away his wife on this account. It seemed more usual in such a case

to take a second wife. In some cases the illness of the husband has

been regarded as a ground for divorce. Intercourse between a wife and

another man is not regarded as a reason for divorce but rather as a

perfectly natural occurrence.

When a man divorces his wife, the woman’s people usually complain to

the naim or council, but if it is decided that the man shall take his

wife back, there appears to be no way of compelling him to do so. In

any case the husband pays a fine (kwadr) of one buffalo to the wife’s

people, just as he would have done if he had refused to take her when

she reached the marriageable age, but he receives back any buffaloes he

may have given as pòdri. Even if the council decides that the man ought

to take his wife back and he refuses, a fine greater than one buffalo

cannot be inflicted.

If the divorced woman re-marries, the previous husband does not receive

anything, and any buffaloes given become the property of the woman’s

family.

THE MOKHTHODITI INSTITUTION

In addition to the regular marriage, there is another recognised mode

of union between men and women, which is called mokhthoditi. The man

who becomes the consort of a woman in this way is called her

mokhthodvaiol—viz., “man who keeps mokh,” [211] and the woman is called

sedvaitazmokh—viz., “woman who joins.” The mokhthoditi union differs

from the regular marriage in one important respect. It may be, and

usually is, formed between Tarthar men and Teivali women, or between

Teivali men and Tarthar women. The great majority of instances of which

I heard were of this kind. One woman might have more than one

mokhthodvaiol, the largest number of which I heard being three.

Similarly, a man might have more than one sedvaitazmokh, but as the

custom entailed considerable expenses on the man, this was not common,

and I did not hear of any instance in which a man had more than two.

The mokhthodvaiol has no rights over any children who might be supposed

to be his; they are regarded as the children of the regular marriage.

This would be the case even if the husband were dead or separated from

his wife. If a Teivali man took a Tarthar widow as sedvaitazmokh, and a

child were born, the child would belong to the Tartharol, and would be

regarded as the son of the dead husband of the woman, and would belong

to his clan. The child might live with the mokhthodvaiol, and be spoken

of ordinarily as the child of this man, but yet for all social and

legal purposes, the child would be a member of its mother’s husband’s

clan. The dead husband is regarded as the father because it was he who

last performed the pursütpimi ceremony.

There are two forms of the mokhthoditi union. In one the woman lives

with the man just as if she were his real wife, almost the only

difference being that any children would be legally the children of the

legal husband of the woman or of some man of her division called upon

to perform the pursütpimi ceremony. In the other and more usual form

the man visits the woman at the house of her husband.

Owing to the restriction on the visits of Teivali women to Tarthar

villages, there is a difference in the nature of the mokhthoditi union

in the two divisions. A Teivali mokhthodvaiol may take his wife to live

with him at one of the Teivali villages, but in those cases in which

Tarthar men live permanently with Teivali women, the mokhthodvaiol must

live at the woman’s village. There are two examples of this practice at

the present time in which Tarthar men live altogether at Teivali

villages.