Breaking down the question
This is a short-note question worth 12 marks, and its brevity is deceptive. The examiner pairs two closely related but analytically distinct concepts — lineage and descent — and expects you to show that you understand both the relationship and the difference between them. Descent is the broader principle: it is the socially recognised rule by which an individual traces connection to ancestors and, through them, to a wider body of kin. Lineage is one concrete outcome of that principle — a descent group whose members can actually demonstrate their common ancestry step by step.
A strong answer therefore treats descent as the organising rule and lineage as the corporate group it produces. The question sits within the classical anthropological study of kinship, so the examiner is looking for conceptual precision, appropriate use of technical vocabulary, and at least one or two ethnographic illustrations.
How to approach it
Open by defining descent as a principle of social organisation, then distinguish the main types — patrilineal, matrilineal, cognatic and double descent. Next, define lineage as a corporate unilineal descent group and explain how it differs from the clan, where common ancestry is assumed rather than demonstrated. Bring in the functionalist reading of lineage as a jural and property-holding unit, and close with the idea of the segmentary lineage. Ethnographic anchors — the Nuer, the Tallensi — lend authority. You can connect this to broader treatment of the family, household and marriage in your notes.
Model answer
Descent refers to the culturally recognised principle by which individuals trace their kinship connection to ancestors and thereby locate themselves within a larger network of relatives. Where descent is reckoned through one line only, it is termed unilineal — patrilineal when traced through males and matrilineal when traced through females. Cognatic or bilateral descent traces relatedness through both parents, while double descent combines patrilineal and matrilineal reckoning for different purposes.
A lineage is the group that this principle produces. It is a corporate, unilineal descent group whose members can genealogically demonstrate their descent from a known common ancestor. This capacity for demonstration distinguishes the lineage from the clan, where members merely assume a shared, often mythical, ancestor without being able to trace the links. Radcliffe-Brown and Meyer Fortes emphasised that the lineage is a jural unit — it holds property, regulates marriage, settles disputes and provides political identity, functioning as the enduring skeleton of society while individuals come and go.
Evans-Pritchard's study of the Nuer gave us the influential model of the segmentary lineage, in which lineages divide into balanced branches that unite against outsiders and oppose one another internally — the logic of complementary opposition. Such systems supply political order in stateless societies without any centralised authority. Fortes's work on the Tallensi similarly showed how the patrilineage structured ritual, land and obligation.
In sum, descent is the rule; lineage is the organised, corporate embodiment of that rule. Together they form the architecture through which pre-industrial societies distribute rights, property and authority across generations.
Examiner's perspective
Examiners reward candidates who keep the descent–lineage distinction crisp rather than treating the terms as synonyms. The single most common error is conflating lineage with clan; drawing that line clearly signals conceptual command. Naming Evans-Pritchard's segmentary model and the Nuer or Tallensi material lifts the answer from textbook recall to informed argument. Given the twelve-mark weight, precision and economy matter more than length — a tight, well-illustrated response outperforms a padded one.