JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.. Royal Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Man.Analysts who have studied Dravidian kinship follow a common method. They choose analytic categories which, first, classify specific categories for kinsmen (that is, kin terms), and, second, indicate marriage regulations. Dumont forwards the opposition terminological kin/terminological affines while Yalman argues for the opposition parallel/cross relatives. In justifying their choice of terminology, the authors present contrary interpretations of the place of alliance constructs, descent constructs, and genetic constructs, in the system. For example, Dumont classifies mother's brother (and father's sister) as affines due to the alliance relation between a man and his wife's brother. The objection of Radcliffe-Brown, Gough, and Yalman implicitly refers to a Western bio-genetic notion of natural substance: mother's brother is universally a consanguine (Gough I966: 334).There is an alternative method, a cultural account: using indigenous generic categories defined by indigenous notions of natural substance to classify kin terms and to specify marriage regulations. I began this exercise the day I discussed the Dumont/Yalman debate with an informant whose systematic thinking was complemented by a very wry sense of humour. He told me that Tamils of the Jaffna peninsula, northern Ceylon, have three generic categories for kinsmen, cakotarar, campantikkarar, and cakaldr,I which exhaustively classify all kin terms. And he used indigenous theories of natural substance to justify the classification of kinsmen. His exegesis of the category campantikkarar was the indigenous theory of the transubstantiation of a woman at the time of her marriage. Before marriage, she is identical in natural bodily substance with her natal family; during the ceremony, she becomes physically identical with her husband and his kinsmen. Therefore mother's brother is classified as campantikkarar because mother's brother and sister's son do not share natural substance; they are not blood relatives as in Western theory. He concluded his critique of the analytic classification by saying, 'My sister and I share natural substance until marriage do us part. Then how could I call her a parallel or a cross relative? I should have to call her a criss-cross relative!'After presenting a cultural account of Jaffna Tamil generic categories for kinsmen, I shall clarify some aspects of the above debates and indicate the potential of a cultural account for cross-cultural comparison as opposed to cross-social comparison (Schneider I973: 48). The point is that rejecting analytic categories for some pu...