51
Adoption in the changes of family,
kinship,
and marriage:　 A comparative view based on studies from Micronesia and India
南太平洋海域調査研究報告
No.53（201３年２月）
OCCASIONAL PAPERS No.53（February 2013）

Adoption in the changes of family, kinship, and marriage:
A comparative view based on studies from Micronesia and India
NAKATANI Sumie
Center for International Planning, Kagoshima University
Abstract
Adoption was widespread in Oceania and has been a subject of manyanthropological studies. Reviewing previous studies, first I point out that adoption
customs in Micronesia can be broadly differentiated into two; one is a transfer of rightover a child among the same kin and the other is that between kin and affine. The
former functions as a mechanism for acquiring heirs to continue a vertical line, while
the later for compensating labour lost in marriage exchange.
Second, I consider the recent decline of adoption on Romonum. I suggest that the
adoption between kin and affine might have decreased, while the marriage transaction
which exchanges siblings between two families has increased. It is assumed that along term exchange of labour between lineages (marriage followed by adoption) is
replaced by an immediate exchange between families (sibling-exchange in marriage).
Describing a peasant society in India, it is shown that both adoption and marriage
are systems which are structured by the ways how land, labour and fertility arecontrolled in the society.
As for concluding remarks, I argue to see a link between adoption and marriage
and to understand a change of the ways in controlling resources (land, labour, andfertility) as household politics over them. This perspective enables us not only tounderstand a recent change of adoption in Micronesia but to discuss it cross-culturally.
Key Words: Adoption, Sibling-exchange, Politics over household resources, Micronesia.

Introduction
This is a comparative study on adoption in the changes of family, kinship andmarriage. I had a chance to visit Romonum, an island of Chuuk in Micronesia for the
first time in 2011. During the interviews, I was impressed by attitudes of the people
to step-relations, adoption and fosterage. After returning to my country, I cameto know that adoption was widespread in Oceania and had been a subject of manyanthropological studies (cf. CARROLL 1970, BRADY 1976).
In the following I will review those previous articles on adoption in Micronesia. A
series of discussions have been made, but I think there are confusions about different
types of adoptions motivated by different factors. Adoption customs in Micronesia
can be broadly differentiated into two; one is a transfer of right over a child among
the same kin and the other is that between kin and affine. The former functions
as a mechanism for acquiring heirs to continue a vertical line, while the later for

52
NAKATANI Sumie

compensating labour lost in marriage exchange.
Then, I will consider recent changes of adoption in Romonum island, withreference to those in a peasant society of India where I had studied for a long time(cf. NAKATANI: 2008). Giving an example from a peasant society in India, I suggestthat transformation of marriage and adoption, institutions which transfer productive
resources such as land and labour among different groups, will be caused by thechanges of the way how productive resources are controlled in the society.
This paper, in which I try to explain adoption in terms of resource control system(land inheritance, labour organization, and marriage exchange etc.), is inspired by a
GOODY’s paper titled“Adoption in cross-cultural perspective”(GOODY 1969). His paper
has not been discussed so much by students of Oceanic adoption, partly because his
definition of adoption seems not to fit into cases in Oceania and partly because mostof the studies in Oceania have engaged the solidarity or sterility debate over a factor
of adoption. However, I believe that control and access over productive resources areimportant factors, based on which a system of family and kinship is structured.
Before examining adoption studies in Micronesia, I will give a summary of GOODY’s
paper. In the paper he enquired into the reasons why adoption was quite common in
major Eurasia such as China and India, while it was less found in Africa. Liking theuneven distribution of adoption with other broad differences of those societies, hespecified the functions of adoption. His conclusion is very suggestive in the point thatthe institution of adoption, he says, is related to the system of inheritance.
In a society where property is transmitted from one generation to the next byvertical inheritance, adoption is often used to provide an heir for a man’s property
in the shape of a direct descendant, who can continue a man’s name and often his
worship. In Africa where the productive system makes less intensive use of land andthere is less to leave in terms of restricted resources, property is less problematicand may pass through brothers or nephews; meanwhile personal continuity is often
maintained through begetting sons rather than adopting. When one’s wife is barren, he
may get wives by polygamy, levirate, or widow inheritance. Under these conditions,the institution of adoption has not developed, while fostering (which involves nopermanent change of identity) is common to take care of orphans. He differentiatedadoption from fosterage and argued that the need for heirs (and for adoption) is
diminished in Africa.
Previous studies on adoption in Micronesia
Studies of adoption have ramifications that lead scholars to explore aspects ofkinship, land tenure, social stratification, legal systems, and genetics. The main
discussions in Micronesia, however, evolved around the relative importance of kinshipand demography as variables influencing rates of adoptions. WECKLER published thefirst article on adoption in 1953 and pointed out that adoption practices are particularlycommon in the Pacific. Based on the data in Mokil island, he suggested the foremost
motive for adoption is childlessness (WECKLER 1953). Following this observation,
literature over reasons for adoption developed a quarter of a century later. In order tounderstand the context in which adoption was discussed, I will review some of thosestudies in different islands of Micronesia (Fig.1).

53
Adoption in the changes of family, kinship, and marriage:　 A comparative view based on studies from Micronesia and India

Fig. 1. Location of islands discussed in the paper.

Ruth GOODENOUGH attributed a high adoption rate on Romonum to“unevenly
reduced fertility in women, most notably as a result of venereal infection, and she
predicted that the rate of adoption declines in the face of more balanced fertility(GOODENOUGH 1970:337). By contrast, Marshall reported an even higher adoption rate
for the Namoluk atoll, despite a more favourable fertility picture. He argued thatthe high rate of adoption and fosterage represent part of a larger pattern of sharing
among relatives (MARSHALL 1976:47).
Looking for a single reason of adoption, some studies emphasized the sterility,
while others the solidarity of kin. Little attention has been paid to the family,
kinship, and marriage which are structured by the system of control and access overproductive resources. Exceptionally SUDO’s paper (1977), which is written in Japaneseand has not been referred so much, discusses the validity of a GOODY’s cross-cultural
perspective for understanding adoptions in Oceania (Table 1).
Comparing seven islands mainly of Micronesia, S UDO concludes that adoption
for the purpose of acquiring an heir (or heiress) is more important in the society
where the size of a corporate group is smaller and lands are also privately owned
by individuals. There are some societies (Ponape, Mokil, Kapigamarangi) in which
adoption works as a mechanism for acquiring heirs, while in the other society(Romonum), where a corporate group is consisted of two to four generations of amatrilineage members and productive resources are collectively controlled, acquiring

Patrilineage

Patrilineage
Siblings
Matrilineage
Matrilineage

Weckler(1953)

Lingenfelter(1975).
Sehneider(1962)

Emory(1965)

Spoehr(1949).
Mason(1954)

Force and Force(1972)Mokil

Yap

Kapingamarangi

MarshallPalau＜Ｔａｂｌｅ１＞Ｄｒａwn by the Author based on Sudo (1977)

Matrilineage

Fisher(1970)

PonapeLine ofInheritance

R.G.Goodenogh(1970) Matrilineage

Researchers

Romonum

IslandVirilocal

Matrilocal

Uxolilocal

Patrilocal

Patrilocal

Virilocal

Matrilocal

Residence

Adoption

Adoption involve a change of clan
membership and land inheritance.

A boy is prefered for adoption. Adoption
is closely related with land inheritance andpracticed（within a patrilineal cohsanguine.）
within a patrilineal consanguine.

Adoption does not involve land inheritanceand change of lineage membership.
Adoption is a mean of contiution of a lineage.
Adoption unites distant kins.

Matrilineage
Extended family of
matrilineal brothers

Sibling set of two or Adoption is based on a need to have a crossthree generation
sex sibling.

Extended family

Extended family

Nuclear family

Adopotion is related to land inheritance. A firstborn boy is preferred. There is a special typeof adoption which plans a cohesion ofdifferent matirilineages.

There found no adoption for the purpose of
Matrilineage of two
acquiring a heir. Adoption never changes
or three generations
clan membership.

Cooperate Group(Land ownership)

Table 1. Comparisons of seven islands in Micronesia based on SUDO (1977).

54
NAKATANI Sumie

55
Adoption in the changes of family, kinship, and marriage:　 A comparative view based on studies from Micronesia and India

heirs is not problematic. In the latter society the adoption has a different purpose
which cannot be explained by the descent theory (SUDO 1977: 264).
S UDO further describes the adoption custom observed in Ulul island as an
example of the latter society. A first child of a couple is customarily adopted by alineage corporate group out of which the husband married. The child is adopted incompensation for his father. He argues that this type of adoption intensifies the role ofa father’s lineage in a matrilineal society and that it is closely related with the systemof ritual exchange between kin and affine (SUDO 1977: 278).
Recently RITTER also mentioned the two categories of adoption which need to bedifferentiated. He addresses himself to the diachronic aspects of adoption and argues
that adoption agreements are distinguished from adoption outcomes. In Kosrae there
are many cases of unrealized adoption agreements. Some adopted babies do not adjust
well to new environment and return to the parents. When growing old, some make adecision to return to their natural parents for several reasons. Kosraens often says“upto them”in regard to the child’s role in the termination or continuation of adoption
relationship (RITTER 1981: 53).
When an adoption agreement is initiated, no one knows that the adoption relation
will be successful in fulfilling the expected ideas such as using the male adopter’s
name, inheriting his land and acting as son or daughter in his family. Thus, adoption
in Kosrae does not function as a mechanism for acquiring heirs. He points outthat the analytical term adoption is used in different ways. It might refer to either
adoption agreements, adoption outcomes, or current adoption relationships (many ofwhich will eventually terminate as unsuccessful adoption). The problem of carefully
defining what is meant by the term adoption is extremely important if comparisons
between societies are to be meaningful. One theory might deal with the occurrence
and frequency of adoption agreements, as found in the Pacific society. Another theory
would be necessary to explain the frequency of adoption involving land inheritance,
more complete incorporation of adoptees into the new kin identity, and permanent
residence change (RITTER 1981: 59).
The distinction of adoptions suggested by Ritter resembles the different types ofadoptions discussed by SUDO. According to him, the former is adoption explained byexchange theory and the latter by descent theory. These distinctions are, however,analytical categories and do not fit into a local idea. I propose to differentiate an
adoption among the same kin from that between kin and affine. The former is mainly
for acquiring heirs and the latter for exchanging labours. Both are concerned withhow to share, exchange, and distribute productive resource (land, labour, and fertility).
The previous studies have debated the factor of adoption, but most of them haveassumed that the state of childlessness is a primary condition for recipients and thedonors have economic difficulties with many children. This proposition also needs tobe reconsidered in the case of adoption between kin and affine. DAMES analysed the
motive for giving children in adoption and argues against the notion that adoption acts
as a balancing mechanism to level differences in family size in response to economic
needs (DAMES 1983).
His Pingelap data show that one-third of the donor families gave up theirfirstborns, and that over two-thirds of the children adopted came from families with

56
NAKATANI Sumie

no other child or only one child. In a patrilineal society of Pingelap, the dominant formof adoption is one by maternal grandparent. Asked about the preference for giving
children in adoption to maternal rather than paternal grandparents, a chief informantof Dames tells that the daughter’s husband may be asked to pay for the work of hiswife by donating a child to the maternal grandparent１. Also, in many cases unwed
mothers live with their parents and divorced women return with their children to
their parents. Upon marriage or remarriage, these women tend to leave their children
behind to be formally adopted by the grandparents. In reviewing the role of kinshipin Pingelapese adoption, Dames argues that the importance of bilaterality is evident(DAMES 1983: 338).
This type of adoption found in Pingelap is an oppositely directed transfer of a childwhich is observed by SUDO in matrilineal Ulul society. In both cases the purpose of
adopting a child is to compensate for lost labour. The adopted child moves in anotherdirection that his/her father in matrilocal residence or mother in patrilocal residence
moved. The same type of adoption between kin and affine was observed in Romonum,
too. GOODENOGH (1970) counted 18 cases out of 57, while 28 cases are adoptions amonga kin. She did not recognize a functional difference of the two because she considereda high rate of sterility among women at that time as a main cause of adoption in
Romonum. However, the people of Romonum most probably knew the different
function played by two types of adoption.
Recently overall rates of adoption have declined in Oceania. According to DAMEs,
the rate of adoption among a kin seriously declined on Pingelap to the extent thatsuch a sample is meaningless in its small size. What does happen with the other typeof adoption to compensate for labour of a person who married out? In the next section,
I will make an assumption about the change of adoption in Romonum, based on acomparison with a peasant society in India.
Changes of adoption caused by the change in controlling productive resources
I interviewed to some families in Romonum about their kinship and affinal relations.
Though it was a sample survey to just a dozen of families, I was surprised to find out
four cases of marriage transaction which exchange siblings directly (Fig. 2).
The direct exchange of siblings is found in recent marriages after the1990s not

○

△

○

△

ｂ

A

ａ

Ｂ

Fig. 2. Direct exchange of siblings in marriage.
１

Ｔｈｅ　ｓａｍｅ　ｔｙｐｅ　ｏｆ　ａｄｏｐｔｉｏｎ　ｉｓ　ｒｅｐｏｒｔｅｄ　ｂｙ　Ｒｉｔｔｅｒ，　 ｔｏｏ　ｆｒｏｍ　Ｋｏｓｒａｅ　ｗｈｅｒｅ　ｍａｔｅｒｎａｌ　ｇｒａｎｄｐａｒｅｎｔｓ　ａｒｅ　ｍｏｒｅ
　ｌｉｋｅｌｙ　ｔｏ　ａｄｏｐｔ　ｔｈａｎ　ｐａｔｅｒｎａｌ　ｇｒａｎｄｐａｒｅｎｔｓ，　 ａ　ｐｈｅｎｏｍｅｎｏｎ　ＷＩＬＳＯＮ　（１９７６：　８４）　ｆｏｕｎｄ　ｉｎ　Ｌｅｌｕ　ｖｉｌｌａｇｅ　ｉｎ　１９６４．
Ａｃｃｏｒｄｉｎｇ　ｔｏ　Ｒｉｔｔｅｒ　ｓｏｍｅ　ｐｅｏｐｌｅ　ｆｅｅｌ　ｔｈａｔ　ｔｈｅ　ｍａｔｅｒｎａｌ　ｇｒａｎｄｐａｒｅｎｔｓ　ｓｈｏｕｌｄ　ｂｅ　ｇｉｖｅｎ　ａ　ｃｈｉｌｄ　ｔｏ　ｃｏｍｐｅｎｓａｔｅ　ｆｏｒ ｌｏｓｉｎｇ　ｔｈｅｉｒ　ｄａｕｇｈｔｅｒ（ＲＩＴＴＥＲ　１９８１： ５２）．

57
Adoption in the changes of family, kinship, and marriage:　 A comparative view based on studies from Micronesia and India

in old marriages. The increase of the sibling exchange in marriage seems to berelated with the change of ways in controlling productive and reproductive resources(labour, land, and fertility of woman), because marriage transactions are a means inwhich households attempt to adjust labour needs, transfer property and reproduce
themselves.２ The adoption between kin and affine might have decreased in Romonum,
while the marriage transaction which exchanges siblings between two families has
increased. It is assumed that a long term exchange between lineages is replaced by an
immediate exchange between families.
These changes, I guess, happened in a recent situation where a linage solidarity
and interdependence of different lineages are getting weak under the influence ofmodernisation. Compensating a lost labour of a man by adopting a child takes a longtime until the child grows up. It is not sure that the adopted child will stay withthe adoptees in the future and work for them. On the other hand, the direct siblingexchange results in a total equivalence at a shorter period between what is given andwhat is received. People must have preferred a short term exchange which seems to
be more assured.
The discussion I proposed here cannot be attested with a lack of the empirical data
which tell a present situation of adoption in Romonum. Instead, I will describe a casefrom a peasant society in India to show that adoption and marriage will change inaccordance with changes of social systems which control productive and reproductive
resources (labour, land, and fertility of woman). It helps to explain the causal link ofthose changes.
In a peasant society in Rajasthan, north-western part of India, the marriage ofbride-service which is followed by matrilocal residence was common before the land
reform in the1950s３. Bride-service refers to the transfer of labour from the groom tothe bride’s family. At that time, most of land in Rajasthan was controlled by the state
directly or by the feudal lords (holders of the estate given by the state). The peasantfamily held tenancy rights over a certain piece of land and inherited it from generation
to generation. Since land was plentiful, if infertile, the most important productive
resource was labour.
In getting married, a boy used to work for the girl’s family for a certain period.
During the pre-marital service to his in-laws, he was sometimes given a tenancy
right by the girl’s family or by the landlord in her village if he worked hard andwas favoured by them. Then, he continued to stay in his wife’s natal village after
completing his service. In those days, peasants easily shifted to any village where
they could get a tenancy right and daughters used to play a key role to deliver it toher husband. Thus, I found several cases of bride-service marriage with matrilocal
residence among men beyond age 70 when I interviewed in 2003. However, I did not
２

ＳＣＨＬＥＧＥＬ　ａｎｄ　ＥＬＯＵＬ　ｄｉｓｃｕｓｓ　ｔｈａｔ　ｔｈｅ　ｄｅｔｅｒｍｉｎｉｎｇ　ｆａｃｔｏｒｓ　ｉｎ　ｍａｒｒｉａｇｅ　ｔｒａｎｓａｃｔｉｏｎｓ　ｌｉｅ　ｗｉｔｈｉｎ　ｈｏｕｓｅｈｏｌｄ　ｏｒｇａｎｉｚａｔｉｏｎ　ｓｉｎｃｅ　ｉｔ　ｉｓ　ｈｏｕｓｅｈｏｌｄｓ　ｔｈａｔ　ｇｉｖｅ　ａｎｄ　ｒｅｃｅｉｖｅ　ｐａｒｔｎｅｒｓ　ｉｎ　ｍａｒｒｉａｇｅ．Ｔｈｅ　ｍａｒｒｉａｇｅ　ｔｒａｎｓａｃｔｉｏｎｓ　ａｒｅｗａｙｓ　ｉｎ　ｗｈｉｃｈ　ｈｏｕｓｅｈｏｌｄｓ　ａｔｔｅｍｐｔ　ｔｏ　ａｄｊｕｓｔ　ｌａｂｏｕｒ　ｎｅｅｄｓ，ｔｒａｎｓｆｅｒ　ｐｒｏｐｅｒｔｙ，ａｎｄ　ｒｅｐｒｏｄｕｃｅ　ｔｈｅｉｒ　ｓｏｃｉａｌ　ｓｔａｔｕｓ　（ＳＣＨＬＥＧＥＬ　ａｎｄ　 ＥＬＯＵＬ　１９８８）．
３
Ｔｈｅ　ｄａｔａ　ｏｆ　ｍａｒｒｉａｇｅ　ａｌｌｉａｎｃｅ　ａｍｏｎｇ　ａ　ｐｅａｓａｎｔ　ｓｏｃｉｅｔｙ　ｗａｓ　ｍａｉｎｌｙ　ｃｏｌｌｅｃｔｅｄ　ｉｎ　２００３　ｉｎ　ａ　Ｒａｊａｓｔｈａｎ　ｖｉｌｌａｇｅ（ＮＡＫＡＴＡＮＩ　２００８）．

58
NAKATANI Sumiefind even a case of it among men under age 50 who got married after the land reform.
When a peasant family got a private ownership of land, the land was registeredby a name of a household head and inherited by sons not by daughters. Living in thevillage of his wife became considered to be dishonourable, because he does not have
any right over land in her village. Patrilocal residence was enforced in the peasantsociety. The marriage of bride-service became also unfavourable, since it does not
involve a transfer of right over land.
Today, a boy marries either paying money to a girl’s family (bride-price) or giving
his sister instead of cash to his brother in-law (sister-exchange). The new system ofadopting a son in-law as an heir has appeared for those who have no son. In this way
the systems of marriage and adoption have changed. This change was mainly causedby land reform which gave private ownership of the land to its male cultivators, but
at the same time, it deprived peasant women (daughters) of rights to inherit tenancy
and of the chance to live in their natal places. The system of marriage and adoption
had changed in a close relation with change in the way of controlling land and labour.
Concluding Remarks
In this paper, I discussed a link between a recent change of adoption and that ofmarriage. Describing a peasant society in India, I argued that adoption and marriage
are systems which are structured by the ways how land, labour and fertility havebeen controlled in the society, and in which a household as a cooperate unit deals
with issues of labour needs, of property inheritance, and of social and biologicalreproduction.
In the traditional societies in Micronesia, main productive resources of land andpeople were collectively controlled by each linage cooperate. Marriage was a system
to transfer human resource between lineages for reproduction and an adopted child
who moves to affine was a compensation for the resource lost in marriage. The
transfer of resources in adoption was not only conducted between lineages, but within
a lineage. The former consolidated a tie between different lineages, while the latterconsolidated solidarity of a lineage.
Recently in Micronesia, private property is getting more and more important. Evenin the matrilineal society of Romonum, for example, the amount of property which isinherited from a father and owned by an individual or siblings has been increasing,while some of compounds and houses are still collectively owned by a matrilineage
group. There has been a tendency in which a unit of controlling resources is getting
smaller. It resulted in an increase of sibling exchange in marriage and a decreasingof adoption in Romonum. Adoption, a long term exchange of labour between lineages
is replaced by sibling exchange in marriage, a short term direct exchange of labour
becween families.
A reviewing of previous studies made clear firstly that there are two types ofadoptions in Micronesia; one is adoption among a kin for acquiring heirs and the otheris adoption between kin and affine for exchanging labour. Secondly it was discussed
that the former type of adoption is explained by a descent theory and the latter bya system of exchange and distribution. However, both types of adoptions and theirchanges, I argue, can be understood by a perspective which sees them as politics of59
Adoption in the changes of family, kinship, and marriage:　 A comparative view based on studies from Micronesia and India

household over resources. Adoption among a kin is a mean for controlling recourse
vertically while adoption between kin and affine and marriage of sibling exchange
are both means for controlling resources horizontally. Empirical analysis on changesof adoption custom and on household politics over resources in Romonum will be a
research subject in the future.
Bibliography
BRADY I. 1976 (ed.) Transactions in Kinship: Adoption and Fosterage in Oceania. ASAO
Monograph No.4. Honolulu: University Press of Hawaii.
CARROLL V. 1970 (ed.) Adoption in Eastern Oceania. ASAO Monograph No.1. Honolulu:
University Press of Hawaii.
DAMAS D. 1983“Demography and Kinship as Variables of Adoption in the Carolines,”
American Ethnologist, 10(2): 328-344.
GOODENOUGH R. G. 1970“Adoption on Romonum, Truk”In Carroll (ed.) Adoption in
Eastern Oceania. ASAO Monograph No.1. pp.314-40. Honolulu: University Press of
Hawaii.
GOODENOUGH W. H. 1974“Changing Social Organization on Romonum, Truk, 19471965.”In ROBERT J. S. (eds), Social Organization and the Applications of Anthropology.
Cornell University Press.
GOODY J. 1969“Adoption in Cross-Cultural Perspective”Comparative Studies in Societyand History, 11(1): 55-78.
MARSHALL M. 1976“Solidarity or Sterility? Adoption and Fosterage on Namoluk
Atoll.”In Ivan Brady (ed.) Transactions in Kinship: Adoption and Fosterage in Oceania.
ASAO Monograph No.4. pp.28-50. Honolulu: University Press of Hawaii.
NAKATANI S. 2008 “Politics of women’s labour and reproductive power”In Negotiating
Social Changes: Ethnography of a Rajasthan Village (in Japanese), Ph.D dissertation
submitted to Kanazawa University,
RITTER P. L. 1981“Adoption on Kosrae Island: Solidarity and Sterility,”Ethnology, 20:
45-62.
SCHLEGEL A. and ROHNE. 1988“Marriage Transactions; Labor, Property, and Status,”
American Anthropologist, 90(2): 291-309.
SUDO K. 1977“Adoption Customs in Micronesia”(in Japanese), Bulletin of the National
Museum of Ethnology, 2(2): 245-81. Osaka: National Museum of Ethnology.
WECKLER J. E. 1953“Adoption on Mokil,”American Anthropologist, 55(4): 558-568.