KINSHIP TERMS.
Descriptive and classificatory systems. Kinship terms of Wathi-Wathi,
Ngerikudi-speaking people and Arunta. Essential features. Urabunna.
Dieri. Distinction of elder and younger.
Some classless two-phratry tribes observe in practice the same rules as
the four and eight class tribes when they are deciding what marriages
are permissible. The Dieri and Narrangga follow the eight-class rule;
the position of the Urabunna is somewhat uncertain owing to the
obscurity of our authorities, which again is probably due to their lack
of intimate acquaintance with the tribe; and the Wolgal, Ngarrego and
Murring have the simple four-class rule that a man marries his mother's
brother's daughter.
We have seen in an earlier chapter that kinship and consanguinity are
distinct in their nature, though among civilised peoples they are not in
practice distinguishable. In the lower stages of culture it is otherwise,
as will be shown in detail below. Corresponding to this distinction of
consanguinity and kinship but not parallel to it we have two ways of
expressing these relationships--the descriptive and the classificatory.
The terminology of the former system is based on the principle of
reckoning the relationship of two people by the total number of steps
between them and the nearest lineal ancestor of both. The latter does not
concern itself with descent at all but expresses the status of the
individual as a member of a group of persons. Thus, to take a single
example, in a typical Australian tribe the word applied by a child to its
father is not used of him alone but of all the other males on the same
level of a generation provided they belong to the same phratry; to the
other half of the generation is applied the term usually translated
"mother's brother."
Unfortunately but few Australian lists of kinship terms have been drawn
up, and the anomalous tribes like the Kurnai have absorbed a large share
of attention. It is however possible to give tables for the three classes
of tribes with which we have been in the main concerned. Those given are
in use among the Wathi-Wathi of Victoria, the Ngerikudi-speaking people
of North Queensland and the Arunta[138].
_Wathi-Wathi Tribe: two-phratry._
-------------------------------------+------------------------------------+----
_Phratry A_ | _Phratry B_ |Gen-
|_Naponui_ | |_Kokonui_ |er-
|(mother's father) | |(mother's mother)|at-
|_Miimui_ | |_Matui_ |ion
|(father's mother) | |(father's father)|
| | | | I
------------------+------------------+------------------+-----------------+
_Mamui_ | |_Kukui_ | |
(father) | |(mother) | |
_Niingui_ | |_Gunui_ | | II
(father's sister= | |(mother's brother=| |
_Nalundui_, | |_Nguthanguthu_ | |
wife's mother) | |wife's father) | |
------------------+------------------+------------------+-----------------+
|_Malunui_ | | EGO |
|(father's | |_Wawi, mamui_ |
|sister's son) | |(elder brother, | III
|_Neripui_ | |sister) |
|(father's sister's| |_Tatui, minukui_ |
|daughter=wife) | |(younger do.) |
------------------+------------------+------------------+-----------------+
_Waipui_ | |_Ngipui_ | |
(son, daughter) | |(sister's son) | |
| |? (sister's dau. | | IV
| |=_Boikathui_, | |
| | son's wife) | |
------------------+------------------+------------------+-----------------+
|_Naponui_ | |_Kokonui_ |
|(daughter's son) | |(sister's |
|_Miimui_ | |daughter's son) | V
|(sister's son's | |_Matui_ |
| son) | | (son's son) |
------------------+------------------+------------------+-----------------+---
_Ngerikudi: Four-class._
------------------+------------------+------------------+-----------------+----
| | | |Gen-
| | | |er-
_Phratry A:_ |_Class a_1_ |_Phratry B:_ |_Class b_1_ |at-
_Class a_ | |_Class b_ | |ion
------------------+------------------+------------------+-----------------+
|_Daida_ (mother's | |_Mite_ (mother's |
|father) | |mother) | I
|_Baida_ (father's | |_Laeta_ (father's|
|mother) | |father) |
------------------+------------------+------------------+-----------------+
_Naider_ (father) | |_Naibeguta_ | |
_Waita_ (father's | |(mother) | |
brother) | |_Miata_ (brother) | |
_Niata_ (elder | |_Goete_ (elder | | II
sister) | |sister) | |
_Wiata_ (younger | |_Datu_ younger | |
do.) | |( do.) | |
------------------+------------------+------------------+-----------------+
| | | EGO |
|_Danuma_ (wife= | |_Maneinga_ (elder|
|mo. bro. dau.) | |brother) |
|_Lanti ngenuma_ | |_Goete_ (elder | III
|(sister's husband | |sister) |
|=mo. bro. son) | |_Otro_ (younger |
| | |brother or |
| | |sister) |
------------------+------------------+------------------+-----------------+
_Yuta_ (son or | |? (sister's son | |
daughter) | |or daughter) | |
| |_Yamaanta_ (dau.'s| | IV
| |husband) | |
------------------+------------------+------------------+-----------------+
|_Yudanta_ | |_Yuunta_ (son's |
|(daughter's child)| |child) | V
------------------+------------------+------------------+-----------------+----
So far as deficiencies in our information would allow, these tables have
been drawn up on corresponding lines, and the first point which strikes
us is the great similarity between the three tables, in spite of the
apparent wide divergence in the kinship organisation of the tribes. To
facilitate comparison the Wathi-Wathi terms have been arranged, not only
according to the system in use in the tribe, but in such a way as to
show how the terms would be arranged under the four-class system.
_Arunta: Eight-class._
----------------+---------------+-------------------+------------------+----
_Panunga_ | _Uknaria_ | _Bulthara_ | _Appungerta_ |Gen-
----------------+---------------+-------------------+------------------+er-
| |_Ipmunna_ (mother's|_Arunga_ (father's|at-
| |mother, wife's |father) |ion
| |mother's father) | |I
----------------+---------------+-------------------+------------------+
_Oknia_ (father)|_Mura_ (wife's | | |
_Uwinna_ |mother, wife's | | |II
(father's |mother's | | |
sisters) |brothers) | | |
| | | |
----------------+---------------+-------------------+------------------+
| | | EGO |
| |_Ipmunna_ (father's|_Okilia_ (elder |
| |sister's daughter's|brothers) |
| |husband, son's |_Ungaraitcha_ |III
| |wife's mother) |(elder sisters) |
| | |_Itia_ (younger |
| | |brothers and |
| | |sisters) |
----------------+---------------+-------------------+------------------+
_Allira_ | | | |
(children, | | | |
brother's | | | |IV
children) | | | |
----------------|---------------+-------------------+------------------+
| | |_Arunga_ (son's |
| | |son) |V
----------------+---------------+-------------------+------------------+----
----------------+---------------+-------------------+------------------+----
_Purula_ | _Ungalla_ | _Kumara_ | _Umbitchana_ |Gen-
----------------+---------------+-------------------+------------------+er-
| |_Tjimmia_ |_Aperla_ |at-
| |(mother's father) |(father's |ion
| | |mother) |I
----------------+---------------+-------------------+------------------+
_Mia_ (mother, |_Ikuntera_ | | |
mother's sister)|(wife's father)| | |II
_Gammona_ | | | |
(mother's | | | |
brother) | | | |
----------------+---------------+-------------------+------------------+
| | | |
| |_Unkulla_ (father's|_Unawa_ (wife, |
| |sister's sons) |wife's sisters) |
| | |_Umbirna_ |III
| | |(wife's brother= |
| | |sister's |
| | |husband) |
- | | | |
----------------+---------------+-------------------+------------------+
_Gammona_ (son's|_Umba_ | | |
wife) |(sister's | | |IV
|children) | | |
| | | |
----------------+---------------+-------------------+------------------+
| |_Tjimmia_ | |
| |(daughter's child) | |V
---------------+---------------+-------------------+------------------+----
In the Wathi-Wathi system, we observe that in each generation there are
two groups of males and two of females, corresponding to the two-phratry
system, which are distinguished by names differing for each generation.
Precisely the same arrangement is found in the four-class tribe. The
four-class are therefore simply a systematisation of the terms of
kinship in use under the two-phratry system.
Comparing now the eight-class with the four-class system, we do not see
at a glance the essential principle of the former. The clue is given by
the fact that classes I and IV, II and III in phratry A, I and II, III
and IV in phratry B, are what we have termed a couple, that is to say
stand in the relation of parent and child alternately. Marriage being
between classes of corresponding numbers, it follows that
Kumara-Bulthara and Appungerta-Umbitchana are the maternal and paternal
grandparents of the man EGO. The grandparents of his wife are in the
same classes but with reversal as regards the sex. Bulthara is the
cousin of Appungerta, Kumara of Umbitchana and so on. We see therefore
that, just as among the Dieri, a man may not marry his cousin, but must
marry his second cousin, to use ordinary terms, which in this case are
not misleading.
Looking now at the Ngerikudi system, we see that elder and younger
sisters are distinguished in the generations of EGO and his parents.
Possibly they are the eight-class tribe of Queensland to which Dr Howitt
alludes. If not, we have in them a tribe one stage earlier than the
southern Arunta, who have their four classes divided but as yet without
any corresponding names.
The Dieri rule is that of the eight-class tribes. The person designated
as the proper spouse for a male is his mother's mother's brother's
daughter's daughter, in other words, the grandchildren of brother and
sister intermarry. This, as we have already seen, is precisely the
effect of the eight-class rules. We are therefore confronted with three
possibilities. Either the Dieri regulations are aberrant or they have
introduced these rules under the influence of the neighbouring
eight-class system; or the eight-class organisation is a systematisation
of the Dieri rule, adopted perhaps to facilitate the determination of
marriageableness or otherwise in the case of persons residing at some
distance from each other and therefore less likely to be acquainted
with genealogical niceties than the members of a small community. Now if
the second of these hypotheses is correct, it is by no means clear why
the Dieri, having in view the attainment of the object of the
eight-class system, did not simply adopt it; for this we can find no
reason; and it is clearly more reasonable on other grounds to suppose
that these regulations are of independent origin. But we know the
eight-class rule to have arisen from a division within a generation,
which the Dieri rule is not. Therefore the latter must be sporadic.
The same is probably true of the Urabunna, but here our information is
very scanty and the precise working of the rules is far from clear. What
happens is that an elder brother (A) of a woman (B) marries an elder
sister (D) of a man (C); the daughter of this elder sister (D) is the
proper mate for the son of the younger sister (B) of her husband; this
younger sister's husband is the younger brother, C. Now the term elder
brother, elder sister, does not seem to refer to age; the rule appears
to be--once an elder brother, always an elder brother from generation to
generation.
We learn from Spencer and Gillen, that all the women of a generation in
the one phratry, and presumably within the right totem only, are to a
man either _nupa_ (=marriageable) or _apillia_. In the case given by Dr
Howitt the younger sister is _nupa_ to the younger brother, the elder to
the elder brother; but we do not learn how elder and younger are
distinguished, if it is not by descent. Apparently it cannot be by
descent, however; for we find that the son of the younger brother and
sister marries the daughter of the elder brother and sister. As to what
would happen if the younger brother and sister have a daughter, the
elder a son, we have no information; but apparently they cannot marry.
Such a daughter must find the son of two people who stand to her father
and mother as they stood to A and D.
From this example it is clear that the boundaries of the _nupa_ and
_apillia_ groups are not fixed in a given group of women; it is not
possible to divide the women and the men into elder brothers and sisters
on the one hand, younger brothers and sisters on the other. But if this
is the case, we are quite in the dark as to the meaning of the marriage
regulations.
One thing however seems certain; viz., that the Urabunna regulations do
not give the same result as the four-class regulations. With them the
division is within the generation. There is no class of women, who, with
their descendants, are the normal spouses of a class of men, with their
descendants. That being so, the Urabunna case can hardly throw light on
the genesis of the four-class system.
Among the Urabunna, however, like the Wathi-Wathi, we find the rule that
a man must marry in his own generation; and this is _primâ facie_ the
meaning of the four-class rule. It is true that the origin of the
eight-class rule was not what its _primâ facie_ meaning suggests, viz.,
the desire to prevent the marriage of cousins, for we know that it
originated in the distinction between elder and younger sisters. But no
similar theory appears to fit the case of the four-class tribes. No
division within the generation could possibly produce an alternation of
generations.
The Red Indians have in many cases different names for the elder and
younger sister; the Hausa impose on persons standing in these relations
certain prohibitions and avoidances, which are not the same for both
elder and younger; in Australia a man may speak freely to his elder
sisters in blood, but only at a distance to his tribal _ungaraitcha_. To
his younger sisters, blood and tribal, he may not speak save at such a
distance that his features are indistinguishable. In many parts the
elder brother has special rights with regard to the younger, and many
similar customs might be quoted[139].
The question why marriage within the generation--the rule of four-class
and two-phratry tribes alike--should have come into existence is a
complicated one and involves that of the origin of kinship terms. If we
take a crucial case of kinship terminology, we find that a child applies
the same term to its actual mother as to all the women whom its father
might have married, to its potential mothers in fact. If therefore we
have to choose between the gradual extension of the terms from the
single family to the group or their original application to a group,
this instance seems decisive in favour of the latter theory.
Now if marriage was originally not "group" but individual, a question to
be fully discussed in later chapters, we can hardly doubt that
parent-child marriage was forbidden or perhaps instinctively avoided.
But this would be equivalent to prohibiting marriage with one of a
number of men or women embraced under a common kinship term. In the
lower culture generally and especially among the Australians there is a
tendency to follow things out to their logical conclusions. If this were
done in the present case, the result would be to extend the prohibition
to all the persons embraced under the kinship term.
In any case the natural tendency in a small group would be to marry
within the generation, and this might readily become crystallised in the
kinship terms.
The eight-class system, as we have seen, resulted from the distinction
between elder and younger sister. What is the meaning of this and what
analogies do we find to it?
Widely extended also are the systems of age-grades. In all parts of the
world the men, and sometimes the women, are or have been divided into
associations, to which reference was made in Chapter I, which begin by
being co-extensive with the tribe for all practical purposes, since all
pass through the initiation ceremonies. The various initiation
ceremonies during what may be termed the involuntary stage of these
associations, no less than in their later form of secret societies,
determine the rights and duties of the individuals who undergo them. The
period at which they take place is determined, broadly speaking, by the
age of the individual. It is therefore clear that for the peoples in the
lower stage of culture considerations of age are of the highest
importance.
We find that in practice the elder brother has much authority, both over
the younger brother and the sister. In Victoria he decides whom they are
to marry. As we have seen in the tables of terms, the Wathi-Wathi man
distinguishes both elder and younger of either sex by special terms,
which points to their having special rights or duties[140].
If therefore we cannot see why primitive man should have enacted that
the elder rather than the younger, or the daughter of the elder rather
than the daughter of the younger, should be preferred, it is at any rate
of a piece with his other customs.
From the terms of kinship tabulated above various conclusions have been
drawn. It will be seen that a man applies to all the women in the other
phratry on the level of his generation the same term as he applies to
his actual wife. On this basis it has been argued that at one time all
the men in one phratry were united in marriage with all the women in the
other within the limits of the generation. Before this again a stage of
absolute promiscuity is supposed to have existed. This alternative
explanation of the kinship organisations demands to be considered.
FOOTNOTES:
[138] _J.A.I._ XIV, 354; _N. Queensl. Eth. Bull._ VI, 6; Spencer and
Gillen, _Northern Tribes_, p. 90.
[139] Morgan, in _Smithsonian Contr._ vol. XVII; _Globus_, LXIX, 3;
_Nat. Tribes_, pp. 88-9.
[140] For lists of tribes where this distinction is found see Mathew,
_Eaglehawk_, p. 223-4.