the North Andaman any words which could properly be translated
“brother” or “sister.” The two words here given are used by the
Andamanese to denote persons older or younger than the speaker, whether
they be brothers and sisters or not. The derivation of ot-otoatue could
not be ascertained, but the word means “he who was born before me,” and
it is used in this sense to denote any person of the speaker’s
generation who is older than himself. If it is necessary to emphasise
the female sex of the person spoken of, the suffix -čip is added. An
alternative word of exactly the same meaning is ot-areupu (fem.
ot-arep-čip). The word ot-arai-čulute is formed from the stem čulu or
čulutu meaning “following” or “after,” which always takes the prefix
arai-. (This prefix conveys a reference to position in time or space.)
The stem is found in such phrases as tio ŋ’arai-čulutu-bom, “I will
follow you” (literally tio = I, ŋ’ = thou, čulutu = after, and -bom,
verbal suffix), and tarai-čulik “afterwards” (t-arai-čulu-ik). The
prefix ot- added in front of the usual prefix arai- determines the
particular use of the word as referring to human beings. Thus the word
ot-arai-čulute means, literally, “he or she who was born after me.” It
is used in this sense by a man or woman to denote any person of the
same generation who is younger than himself. The suffix -čip may be
added to denote a female. Alternative words of the same meaning are
ot-ara-liču and ot-ara-bela.
These words are not, properly speaking, terms of relationship, but
serve only to denote the respective ages of two persons. I did not
discover any terms whatever by which a man can distinguish his own
brother or sister from any other man or woman of the same age.
Ot-e-bui. The stem -bui means “to marry,” as in n’ e-bui-om = they are
married. “My husband” or “my wife” is simply t’e-bui or t’ot-e-bui.
E-pota-čiu and e-pota-čip. The derivation of these words was not
discovered. They are the terms by which a man distinguishes his wife’s
father and mother, and a woman her husband’s father and mother.
Ot-otone. The word and its meaning are somewhat doubtful. It was
sometimes used by a man to denote his daughter’s husband, and perhaps
also his son’s wife. I once heard it applied to a younger sister’s
husband. It may be compared with the same word as used in the South
Andaman to be mentioned presently.
So far as could be discovered, there are no words in the languages of
the North Andaman for grandfather, grandmother, uncle, aunt, cousin,
etc. The terms given above can be combined to describe relatives of
this kind, as
T’a-mimi aka-mai my mother’s father
Ot-e-bui ot-arai-čulute his wife’s younger brother
Ŋ’ot-a-mai ot-arai-čulute thy father’s younger brother
T’ot-otoatue ot-tire my older brother’s child.
These compound terms are not often used, however.
The terms of relationship of the Akar-Bale tribe may be taken as
representative of the tribes of the South Andaman. The following list
contains all the more important of them.
da father
ab-atr father
in mother
ar-bua child
ar-kodire child (father speaking)
ab-atet child (mother speaking)
mama grandparent
ǰat grandchild
en-toaka-ŋa older brother or sister
ar-dotot younger brother or sister
otoni son-in-law
oten daughter-in-law
ab-i-ŋa consort (husband or wife)
aka-yat parent of child’s consort
aka-bua consort’s younger brother or sister
ep-taruo-ŋa step relative
ot-čat-ŋa relative by adoption
aka-kuam younger relative
ab-čuga older relative (male)
ab-čupal older relative (female).
Da and in. Da is the common term of address used when speaking to an
older man to whom the speaker wishes to show respect. A man will speak
of his own father as dege da, dege being the personal pronoun “my” as
used before a word that has no prefix. The term In is the common term
of address used in speaking to women. A man or woman will refer to his
or her own mother as deg’ in. The use of these two terms as applied to
parents is very similar to the use of aka-mai and aka-mimi in the North
Andaman, with the difference that in Akar-Bale the stem da or in does
not take a prefix to modify its meaning. While the use of the terms Da
and In as terms of address does not in the least imply that there is
any relationship between the person speaking and the person addressed,
yet the phrase dege da would in general be understood as referring to
the speaker’s own father.
Ab-atr. This is a word descriptive of the relationship of a father to
his child. I never heard a man refer to his own father by this term,
but it is heard in such phrases as deg’ in l’ab-atr = my mother’s
father. It conveys a definite notion of the physiological relation
between a father and his children, and might be translated “he who
caused me to be conceived.” There is probably a feminine equivalent
meaning “mother,” but it was not noted.
Ar-bua, ar-kodire and ab-atet. The Akar-Bale word for “infant” is
ab-liga or ab-dareka. The latter word is the phonetic equivalent of the
e-tire of the Northern languages. A parent often speaks of his or her
infant son as d’ab-bula, and of his infant daughter as d’ab-pal,
ab-bula and ab-pal being the terms for “male” and “female [36].” The
exact use of the term ar-bua is difficult to determine. The stem -bua
may be used by itself without a prefix. Dege bua (my child) would
refer, I believe, only to the child of the speaker. On the other hand,
a man would use the term d’ar-bua as referring not only to his own
child but also to the child of a brother or a sister, or even to a
person who was not related to him at all. So far as it could be
determined, it seems that a man or woman might apply this term (ar-bua)
to any person of the same generation as his or her children, whether a
relative or not. It thus means “a person of the same generation as my
own children,” and describes, not relationship, but respective age. The
word ar-kodire refers to the own child of a man, and ab-atet similarly
refers to the own child of a woman. The two words together are thus
equivalent to the ot-tire of the North Andaman, the Akar-Bale
distinguishing between the offspring of a man (ar-kodire) and the
offspring of a woman (ab-atet).
Mama. The word is translated above as meaning “grandparent,” but it has
a wider meaning than this. It is used as a term of address to convey
more respect than is conveyed by the terms Da and In, and is thus used
in addressing any man or woman who is considerably older than the
speaker. With the personal pronoun, dege mama, it may be applied by a
man or woman to any of his grandparents, and also to his father-in-law
and mother-in-law, and to other senior relatives.
J̌at. The word was explained to me by the natives as meaning
“grandchild.” It seems to be a sort of reciprocal of mama, and is
apparently applicable by any old man or woman to any child of the same
generation as his or her own grandchildren.
En-toaka-ŋa and ar-dotot. These two words are used in exactly the same
way as the words ot-otoatue and ot-arai-čulute of the North Andaman.
They are not properly terms of relationship, but may be equally used in
referring to non-relatives. En-toaka-ŋa means “he who was born before
me,” and ar-dotot means “he who was born after me.” I was not able to
discover any word by which a person could distinguish his own brother
or sister from others of the same age. It is not certain, however, that
such a word does not exist.
Otoni and oten. These are masculine and feminine forms of the same
word, and are used to denote a daughter’s husband and a son’s wife.
Otoni is also applied to a younger sister’s husband, and oten to a
younger brother’s wife. The derivation of the words was not discovered.
Aka-yat. This is the native name for the relationship subsisting
between a person’s parents and his parents-in-law. My own mother or
father is aka-yat to my wife’s father or mother.
Aka-bua. The word is derived from the stem bua, meaning “child.” It is
applied by a man to the younger brothers and sisters of his wife, and
by a woman to the younger brothers and sisters of her husband.
Ab-i-ŋa. The word is translated “consort,” and means either husband or
wife. It is derived from the verbal stem -i- meaning “to marry”
(on-i-re), ab- being the prefix, and -ŋa the verbal suffix.
Ep-taruo-ŋa. The word is used to denote a step-child, or a younger
step-brother or sister.
Ot-čat-ŋa. The word means “adopted.” “My adopted child” is simply
expressed as d’ot-čat-ŋa, while “my foster father” is dege da
ot-čat-ŋa. The stem is -čat-, -ŋa being the verbal suffix and ot- the
prefix.
Aka-kuam. In spite of several enquiries, I was unable to ascertain the
significance of this word. I heard it applied on different occasions to
a younger brother or sister, to a younger first cousin, and to the
brothers and sisters of a wife. The only suitable translation would
seem to be “my younger relative,” but it is not certain that it even
implies any relationship at all. It is perhaps really a term denoting
respective social status and is used by a married man to denote other
married men who are somewhat younger than himself, and with whom he is
on friendly terms.
Ab-čuga and ab-čupal. These are the masculine and feminine forms of one
word. Mr Portman [37] gives them as meaning “married man” and “married
woman.” I heard them used, however, with the personal pronoun. Thus a
man applied the term ab-čuga to his older brother, his older sister’s
husband, and to his father’s brother. In this usage these two terms
seem to be in a sense reciprocal to aka-kuam. A younger married man
will refer to older married men and women as his ab-čuga and ab-čupal,
while they will call him aka-kuam.
In his work on the Andamanese, Mr E. H. Man gives a long list of terms
of relationship for the Aka-Bea tribe [38]. It will be of some interest
to compare the terms there given with those of the Akar-Bale tribe
described above.
D’ab-maiola (D’ab-mai-ola). This is translated by Mr Man as “father.”
In Aka-Bea the term Maia is the term of address corresponding to the Da
of Akar-Bale and to the Mai of the North Andaman. The suffix -ola,
added to this and other terms of address serves to convey additional
respect, as Maia, Mai-ola, Čana, Čan-ola, Mama, Mam-ola. Thus
ab-mai-ola corresponds to the aka-mai of the Northern languages.
Dia Maia. This is given by Mr Man as applicable to the following
relatives:—my father’s brother, my mother’s brother, my father’s
sister’s husband, my mother’s sister’s husband, my father’s father’s
brother’s (or sister’s) son, my husband’s grandfather, my wife’s
grandfather, my wife’s sister’s husband (if elder), my husband’s
sister’s husband (if elder).
Dia maiola. My grandfather, my grandfather’s brother, my grandmother’s
brother, my elder sister’s husband.
It must be remembered that these terms are not properly terms of
relationship at all. Any man who is older than the speaker is Maia or
Mai-ola to him, the latter implying a slightly higher degree of respect
than the former. It is probable that the three different terms given
above are not used by the natives with the very precise distinctions
that are drawn by Mr Man. It may be noted that Mr Portman writes in
this connection:—”Maia is an Honorific, equivalent to the English
‘Sir,’ and is used when addressing a male elder. A son calls his father
‘Sir,’ and uses no other word in speaking to, or of, him. A pronoun
Dia maiola [39].”
emphasises the relationship, as: My Father
D’ ab-čanola. Given by Mr Man as meaning “my mother.” It is the
feminine equivalent of d’ ab-mai-ola, Čana being the feminine of Maia,
and corresponding to the In of Akar-Bale and the Mimi of Aka-J̌eru.
Dia čanola. This is given as the Aka-Bea translation of the
following:—my father’s sister, my mother’s sister, my father’s
brother’s wife, my mother’s brother’s wife, my grandmother, my great
aunt, my father’s father’s sister’s daughter, my mother’s mother’s
sister’s daughter, my husband’s grandmother, my wife’s grandmother, my
husband’s sister (if senior and a mother), my elder brother’s wife (if
a mother). In its formation the term is the feminine equivalent of dia
mai-ola, while in its use it is the equivalent both of this term and of
dia maia. This serves to show that there is no real precise distinction
between dia maia and dia mai-ola, such as Mr Man’s list would seem to
imply. Dia čan-ola is not, properly speaking, a term of relationship.
Any married woman senior to the speaker is entitled to be addressed as
Čana or Čan-ola.
D’ ab-čabil. Mr Man gives this as translating “my father, my
step-father.” The feminine equivalent would seem to be d’ ab-čanola,
which is given for “my mother” and “my step-mother.” Mr Portman gives
ab-čabil and ab-čana as the Aka-Bea terms for “married man” and
“married woman [40].” The two words are the equivalents of the
Akar-Bale ab-čuga and ab-čupal.
D’ ar-odi-ŋa. This word is given by Mr Man as one of the equivalents
for “my father.” It is parallel to the Akar-Bale term ab-atr, and is
strictly a term of physiological relationship, meaning “he who caused
me to be conceived.”
D’ab-eti-ŋa. This is translated by Mr Man as “my mother.” It is the
corresponding term to d’ar-odi-ŋa, and refers to the physiological
relationship.
D’ab-weǰi-ŋa or d’ab-weǰeri-ŋa. This also means “my mother,” and is
only an alternative word for the above. The stems eti and weǰi or
weǰeri seem to be two stems meaning the same thing.
D’ar-odi-re or d’ar-odi-yate. Given by Mr Man as meaning “my son” (if
over three years of age, father speaking). It is the equivalent of the
Akar-Bale ar-kodire.
D’ab-eti-re, d’ab-eti-yate, d’ab-weǰi-re, d’ab-weǰi-yate,
d’ab-weǰeri-re, d’ab-weǰeri-yate. These are all given by Mr Man as
translating “my son” (if over three years of age, mother speaking).
They are equivalent to the Akar-Bale ab-atet.
The above words seem to be derived from three stems, -odi-, -eti-, and
-weǰi- (or -weǰeri-), the stems -eti- and -weǰi- having exactly the
same meaning, and belonging, perhaps, to different dialects. The words
are formed by the addition of the prefixes ar- and ab-, and the verbal
suffixes -ŋa, -re, -yate. Thus we have ar-odi-ŋa, “father,” and
ar-odi-re or ar-odi-yate, “son.” Similarly we have ab-eti-ŋa, “mother,”
and ab-eti-re or ab-eti-yate, “son” (mother speaking), while similar
equivalents are made from the stem -weǰi-. The words given as meaning
“son” may also be used to mean “daughter,” but when it is necessary to
emphasise the female sex, the suffix -pail (meaning “female”) is added,
as d’ar-odi-re-pail, d’ab-eti-re-pail.
Dia ota and dia kata. These are given by Mr Man as meaning respectively
“my son” and “my daughter” (if under three years of age, either parent
speaking). Ota and kata are the terms for the male and female genitals.
Dia ba. This is given by Mr Man as meaning “my daughter” (if over three
years of age, either parent speaking). It is the phonetic equivalent of
dege bua in Akar-Bale.
Dia ba-lola. Given as the equivalent of:—my grandson (either
grandparent speaking), my brother’s grandson (male or female speaking),
my sister’s grandson (male or female speaking). The same phrase with
the addition of -pail, meaning “female,” is given as equivalent to:—my
granddaughter, my brother’s granddaughter, and my sister’s
granddaughter (male or female speaking).
D’ar-ba. According to Mr Man this term is applicable by a male or
female to the son of a brother, a sister, a half-brother, a
half-sister, or of a male or female first cousin. With the addition of
-pail, meaning “female,” it is applicable to the daughter of any of the
above.
Ad en-toba-re, ad en-toba-ŋa, ad en-toka-re, ad en-toka-ŋa. These terms
are given by Mr Man as alternative equivalents for “my elder brother
(male or female speaking).” The stem is -toba- or -toka-, with the
prefix en- and the verbal suffix -re or -ŋa. The ad is a special form
of the first personal pronoun, generally d’. With the addition of
-pail, meaning “female,” the term is applicable to an elder sister. The
word corresponds, both phonetically and in meaning, to the Akar-Bale
en-toaka-ŋa.
D’ar-doati-ŋa. Given as meaning “my younger brother (male or female
speaking).” With the addition of -pail, it is applied to a younger
sister. Mr Man gives the word as being also applicable to a first
cousin, if younger than the speaker.
D’ar-weǰi-ŋa or d’ar-weǰeri-ŋa. These are given by Mr Man as
alternative terms for “younger brother,” and, with the addition of
-pail, for “younger sister.” It is to be noted that the stem -weǰi- or
-weǰeri- is the same that occurs in one of the terms for “mother,” but
that the prefix is different, being in this case ar- instead of ab-.
Dia mama. This is given as meaning “my wife’s brother, or my husband’s
brother (if of equal standing).”
Dia mam-ola. Given as the equivalent of the following:—my husband’s
father, my husband’s mother, my wife’s father, my wife’s mother, my
husband’s elder brother, my wife’s brother (if older), my husband’s
sister’s husband (if older), my wife’s sister (if older and a mother),
my husband’s brother’s wife (if older), my wife’s brother’s wife (if
older).
Mama and Mam-ola are terms of address in Aka-Bea. Mam-ola implies a
somewhat greater degree of respect than Mama, and this in its turn is
more respectful than Mai-ola or Maia.
D’aka-kam. Mr Man gives this as a term applicable to the following
relatives:—my younger brother, my younger half-brother. With the
addition of -pail, it is applicable to a younger sister or half-sister.
Dia otoniya and dia otin. The first of these terms is given as
meaning:—my son-in-law (male or female speaking), and my younger
sister’s husband (male or female speaking). The second term is
feminine, and is given as applicable to the following:—daughter-in-law,
husband’s sister (if younger), husband’s brother’s wife (if younger),
wife’s brother’s wife (if younger). The terms are thus equivalent,
phonetically and in meaning, to the Akar-Bale terms otoni and oten.
Aka-yakat. This is given as the relationship subsisting between a
married couple’s fathers-in-law, and between their mothers-in-law. It
is the equivalent of the Akar-Bale word aka-yat.
D’aka-ba-bula and d’aka-ba-pail. The meaning of the first of these is
given as “my husband’s brother (if younger),” and of the second as “my
younger brother’s wife.” The suffixes -bula and -pail mean “male” and
“female” respectively. The term aka-ba is the phonetic equivalent of
the Akar-Bale word aka-bua. The latter seems to be applied to the
younger brothers and sisters of a man’s wife or of a woman’s husband,
and to these alone. The use of these terms and of the terms otoni and
oten, as recorded from the Akar-Bale tribe, may be compared with the
usage stated by Mr Man, as there is some disagreement. In the following
table the Aka-Bea terms are given as they are found in Mr Man’s list,
while those of the Akar-Bale tribe are given from my own information.
Aka-Bea Akar-Bale
Husband’s younger brother aka-ba-bula aka-bua
Husband’s younger sister otin aka-bua
Wife’s younger brother aka-bua
Wife’s younger sister aka-bua
Younger brother’s wife aka-ba-pail oten
Younger sister’s husband otoniya otoni.
It will be observed that the Akar-Bale list is consistent and logical
throughout. It seems probable that there is an error in Mr Man’s list,
and that “husband’s younger sister” should be aka-ba-pail instead of
otin, while “younger brother’s wife” should be otin instead of
aka-ba-pail. This would make the Aka-Bea list consistent with itself
and with the Akar-Bale list.
Mr Man gives, in addition to the terms discussed above, a number of
compound terms, which we may examine briefly.
D’ar-čabil-entoba-re. This is given as applicable to any first cousin
or half-brother who is older than the speaker. The feminine form is
given as d’ar-čanol-a-entoba-yate.
D’ar-čabil-entoba-re lai-ik-yate. This is applicable to the wife of any
first cousin or half-brother, if older than the speaker. As lai-ik-yate
means “his wife,” this is a descriptive term. There is a similar term
dia čanol a-entoba-yate lai-ik-yate for the husband of an older female
cousin or half-sister.
D’ar-ba lai-ik-yate. This means “the wife of my ar-ba,” and is
therefore applicable to the wife of the son of a brother or sister or
cousin, and to the husband of a daughter of a brother or sister or
cousin.
There are a few other similar compounds that need not be given.
In Mr Man’s list a step-son is given as eb-aden-ire. The word for
adoption is ot-čat-ŋa, d’ot-čat-ŋa meaning “my adopted child” and
d’ab-mai-ot-čat-ŋa “my adopted father.”
The system of terms of relationship of the Andamanese is of great
interest as being fundamentally different from the systems of other
uncivilized peoples. It is by no means easy to discover the exact usage
of the different terms that are mentioned above. It is, however,
possible to gain a general idea, probably accurate in essentials, of
the way in which the Andamanese languages express the notions of
kinship.
We may consider first the terms of address and the terms of
relationship formed from them. The terms of address are:—
Aka-Jeru Aka-Bea Akar-Bale
Maia or Mai Da Maia Sir
Mimi In Cana Lady
...... Mama Mama or mamola.
The first of these is used in addressing males and the second in
addressing females, while the third may be used either for males or for
females and implies a higher degree of respect than the others.
In all the languages of the Great Andaman a man refers to his own
father and mother by adding a personal pronoun to the words meaning
“Sir” and “Lady.” In Aka-J̌eru a man speaks of his father as t’a-mai,
and of his mother as t’a-mimi, the a- being a contracted form of the
prefix aka-. This prefix is always used in this way in the Northern
languages. It is not possible to say tičo maia, which would be the
literal equivalent of dege da in Akar-Bale. In the Akar-Bale language
the translation of “my father” and “my mother” is dege da and deg’ in,
the dege being the personal pronoun “my” as used before a word that has
no prefix. The same formation is present also in the A-Pučikwar and
Aka-Ko̱l languages. For example in Aka-Ko̱l “my father” is tiye tao, and
“my mother” tiye in. In the Aka-Bea language, according to the
information given by Mr Man, the word maia (or maiola) may be used
combined with a prefix, as in d’ab-maiola = “my father,” or it may be
used simply with the personal pronoun as dia maia or dia maiola.
According to Mr Man these last two terms are applied not to a man’s own
father, but to the other persons whom he addresses as maia. This is
contradicted by Mr Portman who gives dia maiola as the Aka-Bea for “my
father.”
In the Aka-Bea and Akar-Bale languages (as also in A-Pučikwar and
Aka-Ko̱l) a man always addresses his grandparent or his father-in-law or
mother-in-law by the term Mama or Mamola. He is therefore able to refer
to these persons by adding the personal pronoun to the term of address,
as dege mama in Akar-Bale. This cannot, however, be regarded as
properly a term denoting relationship, for a man may apply the term
Mama to a man or woman to whom he is not related at all [41].
The next kind of words that we may consider are those that describe the
respective social position of two persons. Such are the words
ot-otoatue and ot-arai-čulute in Aka-J̌eru, meaning “he who was born
before me” and “he who was born after me” respectively. These terms do
not, strictly speaking, convey any idea of consanguinity, although they
are commonly used to refer to a brother or a sister. Exactly equivalent
terms are found in all the languages, for example the en-toaka-ŋa and
ar-dot-ot of Akar-Bale. I was not able to discover in Aka-J̌eru nor yet
in Akar-Bale any term to denote a brother or a sister. In Aka-Bea,
however, Mr Man records the term ar-weǰi-ŋa or ar-weǰeri-ŋa. The stem
-weǰi- or -weǰeri-, as we shall shortly see, is a verbal stem referring
to the act of birth, -ŋa is a verbal suffix, and the prefix ar- conveys
a reference to position in space or time. The whole word seems to mean
“he or she who was born in the same womb as myself,” and is therefore
strictly a word meaning “brother or sister.” It is possible that
similar words exist in Akar-J̌eru and Akar-Bale, but I never came across
them.
Other terms descriptive of social status are the Akar-Bale terms
ab-čuga and ab-čupal which refer to married men and women particularly
those older than the speaker. These also are not properly terms of
relationship, though a man may refer to some of his relatives as
d’ab-čuga, adding the personal pronoun to what is properly a word
descriptive of the social position of the person in question. In
Aka-Bea the equivalent terms are ab-čabil and ab-čana. It would seem
that the term aka-kuam (aka-kam in Aka-Bea) is of the same kind, being
applicable by an older married man to a younger. At any rate I was
unable to discover that it conveyed to the natives any notion of
relationship.
There are a certain number of terms that are descriptive of definite
relationships. In the North ot-e-bui, and in Akar-Bale ab-i-ŋa are both
of them derived from verbal stems meaning “to marry” and are used to
denote a husband or a wife. In the North I did not discover any term
descriptive of a father or a mother save those derived from the terms
of address. In Akar-Bale and Aka-Bea there are such terms; ab-atr in
Akar-Bale means “father” while the word for “mother” was not noted; in
Aka-Bea a father is ar-odi-ŋa, and a mother is ab-eti-ŋa. These words
are descriptive of the physiological relation between a parent and a
child. A man’s adopted mother could not be his ab-eti-ŋa, for this term
applies only to the woman from whose womb he issued. Similarly an
adopted father or a step-father could not be ab-atr or ar-odi-ŋa. There
are similar words for child, which also refer to the physiological
relation of a child to its parent. In the North the stem -tire means
“offspring.” The offspring of a plant, that is the young shoots, are
denoted by the term era-tire, the prefix era- serving to convey a
reference to trees and plants. The offspring of an animal or of a human
being is e-tire. The word e-tire means “the child of somebody” without
reference to any particular person as the parent. In the form ot-tire
the word means “his or her child” with reference to some person
understood. A man or woman cannot in strict accuracy apply the term
ot-tire to his adopted child, though I believe that it might be used in
this loose sense at times. An adopted child is “he whom I have
adopted,” t’oi-čolo-kom. In Akar-Bale and Aka-Bea there are different
terms for “child” according as the reference is to the child of a man
or to that of a woman. Thus in Akar-Bale the child (in the
physiological sense) of a father is ar-kodire, and the child of a
mother is ab-atet. In Aka-Bea the physiological relation of a father
and child is denoted by the verbal stem -odi-. This stem takes the
prefix ar-. The word for father is formed by adding the verbal suffix
-ŋa (ar-odi-ŋa). The word for child (father speaking) is formed by
means of the verbal suffix -re or -yate (ar-odi-re or ar-odi-yate). We
may translate d’ar-odi-ŋa as meaning “he who caused me to be conceived”
while d’ar-odi-re or d’ar-odi-yate means “him whom I caused to be
conceived.” In the same language the physiological relation of a mother
and a child is denoted by the stem -eti-. This stem takes the prefix
ab-. A mother is ab-eti-ŋa, and the child of a mother is ab-eti-re or
ab-eti-yate, the verbal suffixes being used in a way similar to that in
the case of the terms for father and child. In Aka-Bea there is also a
stem -weǰi- or -weǰeri- which has exactly the same meaning as -eti- and
can be substituted for it in the terms meaning mother and child, as
ab-weǰi-ŋa = mother, ab-weǰi-re = child.
Other descriptive words used to denote specific relationships are
e-pota-čiu and e-pota-čip and ot-otone in the Northern languages. The
derivations of these words have not been ascertained. Similar terms in
Akar-Bale are otoni and oten and aka-yat. In this language I did not
discover any word descriptive of the relationship of father-in-law or
mother-in-law. Finally there are such terms as ot-čat-ŋa (adopted) and
ep-taruo-ŋa (step-relative).
The most noteworthy feature of these terms is that it is impossible by
means of them to deal with relationships that are at all distant. Thus
there is no term by which a man can describe his grandfather. In
Akar-Bale the phrase dege mama might mean a grandfather, but it might
equally refer to a father-in-law. It is true that the simple terms may
be combined as Aka-J̌eru “aka-mimi aka-mai” = “his mother’s father,” or
Akar-Bale “deg’ in l’ab-atr” = “my mother’s father,” but these
compounded terms are apparently not often used by the natives. A second
noteworthy feature is the existence of terms to denote physiological
relationships (as opposed to merely juridical relationships) such as
the Aka-Bea ar-odi-ŋa, etc. Finally there is the apparent entire
absence, so far as could be determined, of any classification of
relatives such as is characteristic of the classificatory systems of
relationship. Where there does seem to be some sort of approach to such
classification, as in the use of the Akar-Bale term dege mama, we find
that it is really based not on relationships of consanguinity and
marriage, but on respective social status [42].
As, in the languages of the Andamans, there are few words serving to
denote relationship, and on the contrary a developed system of terms
denoting social status, so in the social organisation of the Andamans
there are very few special duties between relatives, and the conduct of
persons to one another is chiefly determined by their respective social
positions. This will become evident as we proceed, and it will thus be
shown that there is a close connection between the way the natives
denote relationships and the way in which their social life is affected
by questions of relationship.
We have already seen that in the Andamanese social organisation the
family is of great importance. A family is constituted by a permanent
union between one man and one woman. In one of its aspects this union
is a sexual one. By marriage a man acquires the sole right to sexual
congress with the woman who becomes his wife. At the same time it is
the duty of a married man to avoid sexual relations with other women
whether married or unmarried. Promiscuous intercourse between the sexes
is the rule before marriage, and no harm is thought of it. The love
affairs of the boys and girls are carried on in secret, but the older
members of the camp are generally fully aware of all that goes on. What
generally happens is that after a time a youth forms an attachment with
some girl and a marriage between them results from their love affair.
It is impossible, at the present time, to discover exactly how the
Andamanese formerly regarded infidelity on the part of a wife or
husband. In the Great Andaman there is great laxity in this matter at
the present day. Quarrels sometimes arise when a husband discovers an
intrigue between his wife and another man, but very often the husband
seems to condone the adultery of his wife. Mr E. H. Man, writing on
this subject, says that “conjugal fidelity till death is not the
exception, but the rule,” and adds, “It is undoubtedly true that
breaches of morality have occasionally taken place among a few of the
married persons who have resided for any length of time at Port Blair,
but this is only what might be expected from constant association with
the Indian convict attendants at the various homes; justice, however,
demands that in judging of their moral characteristics we should
consider only those who have been uninfluenced by the vices or virtues
of alien races [43].” At the present time conjugal infidelity is very
common and is lightly regarded. It is almost certain that the
establishment of the Penal Settlement amongst them has affected their
morals in this particular, but there does not seem to be any very
satisfactory evidence that their former morality was quite so strict as
Mr Man would have us believe. One piece of evidence in this matter is
that the spread of syphilis, when it was first introduced amongst them
seems to have been very rapid, and yet this was before many of the
tribes had been very seriously affected by the Settlement.
Besides the special sexual relation between a husband and wife there is
a special economic relation, if we may speak of it as such. The two
share one hut between them, or one portion of a communal hut. It is the
duty of the wife to provide the fire-wood and the water for cooking and
drinking, and to cook the meals at the family fire. It is the duty of
the husband to provide flesh food for himself and for his wife, while
it is her duty to provide and prepare vegetable food.
A marriage is not regarded as fully consummated until the birth of a
child. Mr Man states that the survivor of a childless couple is not
looked upon as the chief mourner. A father who has been away from home
greets his wife first on his return and then greets his other
relatives; but if no child has been born to him a husband first greets
his blood-relatives (father, mother, brothers, etc.) and only after
that does he visit his wife.
The only regulation of marriage is on the basis of relationship.
Marriage is forbidden between near consanguinei. The exact rules, in
this matter, if indeed there be any exact rules, are difficult to
discover. It is quite clear that a man would not be permitted to marry
his sister or half-sister, nor his father’s or mother’s sister, nor his
brother’s or sister’s daughter. The question is more difficult when it
comes to the matter of cousins. In 1908 I only found one pair of first
cousins who were married to one another, this being in the Aka-Bo
tribe. The husband and wife were the son and daughter of two brothers.
Mr E. H. Man writes that “marriage is only permissible between those
who are known to be not even distantly connected, except by wedlock,
with each other; so inexorable indeed is this rule, that it extends and
applies equally to such as are related merely by the custom of
adoption.” He adds that marriage between first cousins is forbidden. I
was not able to satisfy myself on this point, but it seemed to me that
while such a marriage as that of first cousins was not actually
regarded as wrong, and therefore forbidden, it was regarded as
preferable that a man should marry a woman not so nearly related to
him. No distinction is made between different kinds of cousin [44].
My observations did not confirm Mr Man’s statement that persons related
by adoption are forbidden to marry. It is necessary, however, to
distinguish two different kinds of adoption. When the parents of a
child of less than six or seven years of age die, the child is adopted
into some other family. We may call this “orphan adoption.” As will be
explained later, there is another custom by which children of over
seven or eight are adopted by a married couple belonging to a local
group other than that of the parents, and live with them till they come
of age. The parents of the child are still alive and they visit him or
her at frequent intervals. No bar to marriage is set up by this kind of
adoption. An adopted son may marry the daughter of his foster-parents.
Indeed when children are betrothed it is the rule for the girl to be
adopted by the boy’s parents, at any rate for a time. On the other hand
it is quite possible that a child adopted when of tender years (as an
orphan) would not be permitted to marry a child of his or her
foster-parents. I was unable to satisfy myself on this point.
There seems to be a prejudice against a woman marrying a man younger
than herself. Some of the women with whom I talked expressed strong
contempt at the idea of marrying a man younger than themselves.
Unfortunately, I neglected to obtain statistics as to the frequency
with which such marriages occur, if they occur at all.
Beyond the prohibition of the marriage of near kin, I could not find
any restriction on marriage. A man may marry a woman from his own local
group or from another, from his own or from another tribe. That
marriages between persons belonging to the same local group did occur
in former times I was able to ascertain with certainty but I was not
able to determine the proportion of such marriages to the whole number.
It is probable that the majority of marriages, or at any rate a large
proportion, were between persons belonging to different local groups.
Marriages are arranged by the older men and women. Children are
sometimes betrothed by their parents while they are still infants. I
found one such case in the North Andaman, and the betrothed couple,
though they were yet small children, were spoken of as being “married.”
Such betrothals are not very common at the present time.
When the parents of a youth who is of suitable age to be married
perceive that he has formed an attachment with a girl, they take it
upon them to arrange a marriage. The matter is first of all talked over
between the young man and his parents. The man’s parents do not
themselves speak to the girl’s parents of the matter, but request some
one or more of their friends to do so. From the moment that the
possibility of a marriage exists the man’s parents avoid speaking to
the girl’s parents. Any communication between them is carried on
through a third person. They send presents to each other, of food and
other objects. The recipient of such a present hastens to make a return
of equal value. If the marriage is arranged the parents on each side
become related to one another by the relationship denoted in Akar-Bale
by the word aka-yat. The duties implied by this relationship will be
described later.
When a marriage has finally been arranged an evening is appointed for
the ceremony. In the North Andaman this is as follows. The bride is
seated on a mat at one end of the dancing ground, her relatives and
friends sitting near her. Torches or heaps of resin are lighted near
by, so that the ceremony may be seen by the on-lookers. The bridegroom
is seated with his friends at the other end of the dancing ground. One
of the older and more respected men addresses the bride, telling her
that she must make a good wife, must provide for her husband such
things as it is the duty of a wife to obtain or make, must see that he
does not run after other women, and must herself remain faithful to
him. He then addresses the bridegroom to the same effect, and taking
him by the hand or arm, leads him to where the bride is seated and
makes him sit down beside her. The relatives and friends weep loudly,
and the young couple look very self-conscious and uncomfortable. The
shyness of the young man is such that he often attempts to run away,
but he is caught by his friends, who are prepared for such an attempt.
After some minutes the officiating elder takes the arms of the bride
and bridegroom and places them around each other’s necks. After a
further interval he again approaches and makes the bridegroom sit on
the bride’s lap [45]. They sit so for some minutes and the ceremony is
over. The other members of the community generally have a dance on such
an occasion, but in this the newly wedded pair do not join. A hut has
already been prepared for them, and all their friends make them
presents of useful objects with which to start housekeeping. They
retire shyly to their new hut, while their friends continue dancing.
The day after the ceremony the bride and bridegroom are decorated by
their friends with white clay. For a few days the newly married couple
are very shy of each other, hardly venturing to speak to or look at one
another: but they soon settle down to their new position in the life of
the community. During the early days of their marriage they are
abundantly supplied with food by their friends. They are not addressed
or spoken of by name, but if their names be A and B, the husband is
called “the husband of B” while the wife is called “the wife of A.”
In the South Andaman the ceremony is much the same as in the North, the
only difference being that the bridegroom is led to where the bride is
sitting and is made to sit on her lap straightway, remaining there for
a few minutes.
When a husband dies his widow may marry again if she wishes. As a rule
I believe that it is not considered fitting that she should take
another husband before the end of her mourning for her former one. Mr
Man says “it is not considered decorous that any fresh alliance should
be contracted until about a year had elapsed from the date of
bereavement [46].” I knew of one case, however, of a woman with a young
child who married again only a fortnight or so after her husband’s
death.
Mr Man speaks of a custom “which all but compels a bachelor or widower
to propose to the childless widow of his elder brother or cousin (if
she be not past her prime), while she has no choice beyond remaining
single or accepting him; should she have no younger brother-in-law (or
cousin by marriage), however, she is free to wed whom she will. It
should be added that marriage with a deceased wife’s younger sister is
equally a matter of necessity on the part of a childless widower [47].”
I was not able to come across a case in which a man had actually
married his elder brother’s widow in recent years. The natives whom I
questioned confirmed Mr Man’s statement, which, moreover, was based on
at least one instance known to him as having occurred. It may be noted
that in his description of this instance Mr Man says that the woman
married her husband’s “brother or cousin,” leaving us in doubt as to
which of these two relatives it really was. There is an ambiguity in
the use of the term “younger brother,” for the Andamanese have no word
meaning simply “younger brother,” but only such terms as ot-arai-čulute
and the equivalents in other languages, which apply to any younger
person, whether actually a brother or cousin or not.
The recent changes in the social life of the Andamanese render it
difficult to determine what was the former practice in matters of this
sort, but I believe that the custom was this, that when a man of a
local group died the older men selected one of the unmarried men and
required him to marry the widow. They selected a man who was younger
than the deceased, that is who was his ot-arai-čulute, and gave the
preference to an unmarried younger brother if there were one, or to a
relative of the deceased, such as a father’s brother’s son.
It may be noted that this custom may conflict with the other custom,
previously mentioned, that a woman objects to marrying a man younger
than herself. In the case mentioned by Mr Man a young man was compelled
to marry a woman who was considerably his senior [48].
I believe that, in connection with, or underlying this custom there was
an objection against a widow marrying a man who was older than her
former husband (and who would therefore be his ot-otoatue). I regret
that I cannot speak with certainty on these matters.
We may turn now to the duties to one another of parents and children.
During their infancy the children are in the care of the mother.
Children are, however, such favourites with the Andamanese that a child
is played with and petted and nursed not only by his own father and
mother but by everyone in the village. A woman with an unweaned child
will often give suck to the children of other women. Babies are not
weaned till they are three or four years old.
Before the children can walk, they are carried about by the mother, and
sometimes by the father or other persons, in a bark sling (called čiba
in Aka-J̌eru), which is shown in Plate XIV. After they can walk the
children generally accompany their mothers in their expeditions near
the camp for firewood or vegetables. When they are not with their
mothers they amuse themselves with games in the village or on the
beach. All the children of the coast villages learn to swim when they
are very young, in fact almost as soon as they learn to walk, and many
of their games are conducted in the water.
When a boy reaches the age of five or six his father makes him a toy
bow and arrows, and sometimes a toy canoe. From this time the boy
begins to learn the occupations of men and begins to pick up knowledge
about the animals and trees and fishes of his country. The girl,
accompanying her mother on her expeditions to gather roots and seeds,
or to catch fish or pick up molluscs on the reefs, learns what it is
necessary for women to know.
Until the age of about eight to ten a child lives with his parents,
having a place in the family hut, and a share of the family meal. The
children are treated with extreme kindness, and are never punished, and
hardly ever scolded. Should the parents die the children are adopted by
friends or relatives, and such adopted children are treated by the
foster-parents in exactly the same way as their own children.
At the age of ten, or a little before, a change is often brought about
in the life of a child, owing to the custom of adoption. Mr Man writes
of this custom as follows:
“It is said to be of rare occurrence to find any child above six or
seven years of age residing with its parents, and this because it is
considered a compliment and also a mark of friendship for a married
man, after paying a visit, to ask his hosts to allow him to adopt one
of their children. The request is usually complied with, and
thenceforth the child’s home is with his (or her) foster-father: though
the parents in their turn adopt the children of other friends, they
nevertheless pay continual visits to their own child, and occasionally
ask permission (!) to take him (or her) away with them for a few days.
A man is entirely at liberty to please himself in the number of
children he adopts, but he must treat them with kindness and
consideration, and in every respect as his own sons and daughters, and
they, on their part, render him filial affection and obedience. It not
unfrequently happens that in course of time permission to adopt a
foster-child is sought by a friend of the soi-disant father, and is at
once granted (unless any exceptional circumstance should render it
personally inconvenient), without even the formality of a reference to
the actual parents, who are merely informed of the change, in order
that they may be enabled to pay their periodical visits [49].”
The above passage is quoted because Mr Man had better opportunities of
observation in this matter than myself. At the present day there are
not many children in the Andamans, and this is an obstacle in the way
of this custom of adoption. From my own observation, however, I should
put the age at which it is customary for children to be adopted at
higher than six or seven. I found children of about seven or eight
still living with their own parents. The usual age of adoption seemed
to me to be from nine or ten years upwards.
A man and his wife adopt in this way children belonging to a local
group other than their own. The adopted child lives with his or her
foster-parents, having a place in their hut and a share of their meals.
From about the age of ten children of both sexes begin to be of service
to their parents or foster-parents in many ways. The foster-parents
treat their adopted children in exactly the same way that they would
treat their own children, and the children on the other hand show the
same regard and affection to their foster-parents that they do to their
own parents, and assist them in every way that they can. Their own
parents come to visit them at regular intervals.
The period of childhood is brought to an end at about the age of
puberty by certain ceremonies to be described in the next chapter.
After the beginning of these ceremonies a boy ceases to live in the hut
of his parents or his foster-parents, and must live with the young
unmarried men and widowers in what has been called the bachelors’ hut.
From this time until he marries, his services are constantly required
by his parents or by his foster-parents, and he is expected to obey
them and help them in any way he can. It is only after his marriage
that he becomes relatively independent and free to please himself in
his own actions, and even then he is required to provide his parents or
his foster-parents with food, and to serve them in any way they may
need.
A girl, during the period between the beginning of the initiation
ceremonies and her marriage, continues, at any rate, in some cases, and
in these days, to live with her parents or with foster-parents. Mr Man
states that the unmarried women and girls occupy a spinsters’ hut
similar to the bachelors’ hut. It is possible that this was the former
custom. I found instances of an unmarried girl occupying a place in the
hut of a married couple who made use of her services and controlled her
conduct, regarding her in the light of a foster-daughter. On one
occasion I found two unmarried girls occupying a separate hut adjoining
that of a married couple, who looked after the girls who occupied it.
The position of an unmarried girl is very similar to that of an
unmarried youth. She is required to help her elders, in particular
either her parents or her foster-parents, i.e. the married couple under
whose care she is for the time being.
After marriage a son continues to help his parents, providing them with
food and seeing that they are comfortable. If either a man or a woman
lives in a local group other than that of his or her parents, he or she
pays frequent visits to them.
From the time that a youth or girl ceases to belong to the family
household, his or her duties to the parents are really only the same in
kind as the duties that every young man and woman owes to all the older
men and women. Though there is no difference in kind, yet a man or
woman is expected to show more affection and respect for his or her own
parents than to other persons of the same social standing.
The only other relationship, besides that of husband and wife and that
of parents and children, which exists inside the family, is that
between children of the same parents. The conduct of brothers to one
another depends on their respective ages. The younger is expected to
give way to the elder, while the latter protects and looks after the
former. The relation of sisters to one another is similar.
The duties of a man and woman to his or her relatives, other than those
to parents, brothers and sisters, and even to some extent the duties to
these near relatives, are not distinguishable in kind from the duties
he or she owes to other persons who are not relatives. Thus a young
married man owes certain duties to all the older married men of about
the age of his father. These duties are the same in kind as those
towards his own father and his foster-father, the only difference being
that he must defer more to his own father than to other men, and must
be more constant in his attentions to him. I could not discover any way
in which a man distinguished, in his dealings with them, his father’s
brother from his mother’s brother. They are both of them older men whom
he must respect and to whom he must make presents of food. Similarly a
father’s sister is not distinguished, so far as I could discover, from
a mother’s sister. A man treats both of them in much the same way that
he treats his own mother, or any other woman of the same age. There is
only a slight difference in connection with parents-in-law. A man would
not be so familiar with his parents-in-law as he would with his parents
or their brothers or sisters, and treats them with more deference and
respect. This is borne out by the Akar-Bale custom of applying to a
father-in-law or mother-in-law the same term of address (Mama) that is
used in speaking to grandparents and others to whom it is required to
show particular deference.
In the same way there is very little difference between the way a man
conducts himself towards his elder brother and his conduct towards any
other man of the same age. Brothers are often close comrades, putting
their huts next to one another in the same village, joining together
whenever possible in hunting or fishing expeditions, and so on; but a
man may have a comrade who is not his brother, whom he will treat in
exactly the same way.
The general attitude of a married man to other married men somewhat
younger than himself is very much that towards a younger brother. As
between men and women one special duty appears in this connection. A
married man may not and will not have any close dealings with the wife
of a man younger than himself. It is not considered fitting that he
should speak to her. If he wished to have any communication with her,
he would do so through some third person. It would be regarded as a
wrong thing to do if he were ever to touch her. The only explanation
that the natives give of this custom is by saying that a man feels
“shy” or “ashamed” towards his younger brother’s or friend’s wife. The
custom is exactly the same with respect to the wife of any younger man,
whether a brother, a cousin, or a stranger.
This custom depends on the distinction between older and younger. A man
may be on terms of familiarity with the wife of a man older than
himself, whom he would treat much as he would an elder sister.
There is one special relationship which has peculiar duties attaching
to it, and this is the relationship between the father and mother of a
man on the one hand and the father and mother of the man’s wife on the
other. In the Akar-Bale language such persons are said to be aka-yat to
one another. A man or a woman will not have any immediate dealings with
a person who is his aka-yat. He will not speak to him, and if they
should meet or be sitting near to one another they would avoid looking
at each other. On the other hand a man is constantly sending presents
to his aka-yat. The natives say that two persons in this relation feel
“shy” or “ashamed.” (There is only one word in Andamanese for these two
English words, ot-ǰete in Aka-J̌eru.) The shyness begins at the moment
when a marriage between their respective children is first discussed as
a possibility, and lasts apparently till death.
As throwing a little light on this peculiar relation it may be
mentioned that a similar relation exists between two men who have been
through either the turtle-eating ceremony or the pig-eating ceremony
(to be described in the next chapter) on the same occasion. Two such
men will avoid any contact with one another, not speaking to nor
looking at each other when they chance to meet, but on the other hand
they will be constantly giving each other presents of all kinds,
sending them through some third person.
The main features of the relationship system of the Andaman Islanders
may be briefly summed up. The duties that one person owes to another
are determined much less by their relation to one another by
consanguinity and marriage, than by their respective ages and social
status. Even within the family, which nevertheless is of importance,
the duty of a child to a parent is very little different from his duty
to any other person of the same age. There is very little of any
special customs relating to conduct towards different kinds of
relatives. Corresponding to this we find very few terms to denote
relationships and a considerable development of the terms which denote
age and social status. Thus a man’s duties to his elder brother are
much the same as those towards the other men of the same age, and we
find that there is no word for “elder brother” but only a term by which
a man distinguishes all the men of his own generation older than
himself from those who are younger. Similarly there are no duties that
a man owes to his father’s brother or to his mother’s brother which he
does not also owe, in perhaps a less degree, to other men of the same
age, and there is no term by which he can distinguish his father’s
brother from those others.
If this account of the system of relationship be accurate it will be
seen that the Andamanese society contrasts very strongly, in this
matter, with other primitive societies [50].
It remains for us only to examine the social relations between the
different local groups. Two neighbouring groups, whether of the same
tribe or of different tribes, might be either friendly towards one
another or unfriendly. Friendly relations were kept alive by several of
the customs of the Andamanese, by the intermarriage of members of
different groups, by the adoption of children from one group to
another, and by the fact that a man of one group might take up his
residence more or less permanently with another (particularly when he
married a woman of that group, or was adopted when a boy by one of the
men belonging to it). All these customs served to bind some persons in
the one group to persons in the other, and thus prevent the two groups
from becoming entirely unfriendly to one another.
When two neighbouring local groups were friendly to one another
communication between them was kept up by visitors from one group to
another, and by occasional meetings of the whole of the two groups.
Either a single person or a family might at any time pay a visit to
another camp, staying a few days or weeks or even longer. A man would,
however, only go visiting when he was sure of a welcome. Such visits
were most frequent in the fine months of the year (December to May). As
a husband and wife in many instances belonged to different local groups
they would, if living with the man’s parents, pay a visit every year to
the parents or other relatives of the wife. The parents of a child that
had been adopted by a member of another local group would make a point
of visiting the child when they could. Visitors to a camp would always
take with them presents to be given to their hosts. A visitor was
hospitably entertained, being given the best of the food, and joined
his hosts in their hunting and fishing expeditions. The duty of
hospitality is one upon which the Andamanese lay stress.
The meetings of two or more local groups were organised from time to
time by the more prominent men. The time and place of the meeting would
be fixed and invitations sent out to the neighbours. The visitors, men,
women and children, would arrive at the appointed time, and would be
accommodated as well as possible by the hosts. During the first few
hours, as the natives themselves told me, everyone would feel a little
shy and perhaps frightened, and it would take some time for this
feeling to wear off. The visitors would bring with them various
objects, such as bows, arrows, adzes, baskets, nets, red paint, white
clay, and so on. These were given by the visitors to their hosts, and
other presents were received in return. Although the natives themselves
regarded the objects thus given as being presents, yet when a man gave
a present to another he expected that he would receive something of
equal value in return, and would be very angry if the return present
did not come up to his expectations. A man would sometimes mention,
when giving his present, that he would like some particular object in
exchange, but this was the exception and not the rule, and the process
cannot be spoken of as barter. In certain cases it undoubtedly served a
useful economic purpose. Thus if a local group had no red ochre or
white clay in their own country they could obtain these commodities by
exchange with others who had. In the case of a meeting between forest
and coast dwellers, the former could obtain such things as shells, red
paint made with turtle fat, and other objects with which they could not
provide themselves in any other way. It was in this way also that the
iron obtained from a wreck on one part of the coast would be spread
over a large area. For the most part, however, as each local group, and
indeed each family, was able to provide itself with everything that it
needed in the way of weapons and utensils, the exchange of presents did
not serve the same purpose as trade and barter in more developed
communities.
The purpose that it did serve was a moral one. The object of the
exchange was to produce a friendly feeling between the two persons
concerned, and unless it did this it failed of its purpose. It gave
great scope for the exercise of tact and courtesy. No one was free to
refuse a present that was offered to him. Each man and woman tried to
out-do the others in generosity. There was a sort of amiable rivalry as
to who could give away the greatest number of valuable presents.
The visitors remained with their hosts for a few days. The time was
spent in hunting, feasting and dancing, and in the exchange of presents
above described. The hosts made every effort to provide the camp with
plenty of good things. The guests took their share in the hunting and
fishing expeditions. Every evening was spent in singing and dancing.
Some of the men were sure to have composed new songs for such an
occasion.
Such meetings as these were sometimes the means of bringing to an end
past quarrels between the local groups, but occasionally they were the
cause of new quarrels. The hosts, or some of them, might think that
they had been shabbily treated in the matter of presents, or the guests
might complain that they were not well enough entertained. It often
needed a man of strong influence to maintain harmony in the camp. Angry
words might lead to the rapid breaking up of a meeting, and even result
in a feud between the two groups.
Quarrels between individuals, as we have seen, were often taken up by
friends on each side. This was particularly the case when the two
opponents belonged to different local groups. Before the days of the
settlement of the islands there often arose in this way petty quarrels
between neighbouring local groups. In some instances there appear to
have been feuds of long standing; in others there was a quarrel, a
fight or two, and the enemies made peace with one another, until a
fresh cause of disagreement should arise.
It does not seem that there was ever such a thing as a stand-up fight
between two parties. The whole art of fighting was to come upon your
enemies by surprise, kill one or two of them and then retreat. A local
group that had some grievance against another would decide to make an
attack. They might seek and obtain the aid of friends from other local
groups. The men who were to take part in the expedition would paint
themselves and put on various ornaments and join in a dance [51]. They
would then set out, either by land or by sea, in the direction of the
encampment they meant to attack. Their weapons consisted of bows and
arrows, and they carried no shields or other defensive weapons. They
would not venture to attack the enemy’s camp unless they were certain
of taking it by surprise. For this reason such attacks were generally
made either in the evening when the camp would be busy with the
preparation of the evening meal, or at early dawn, when every one would
be asleep. The attacking party would rush the camp and shoot as many
men as they could. If they met with any serious resistance or lost one
of their own number they would immediately retire. Those attacked, if
they were really taken by surprise, were generally compelled to save
themselves by flight. Though the aim of the attacking party was to kill
the men, it often happened that women or children were killed. The
whole fight would last only a few minutes, ending either with the
retirement of the attackers before resistance, or the flight of those
attacked into the jungle. A wounded enemy would be killed if found.
Such attacks and counter-attacks might be continued for some years,
thus establishing a feud between two neighbouring local groups. More
usually, however, after one or two such fights peace would be made. In
the tribes of the North Andaman there was a special peace-making
ceremony, that will be described in the next chapter. All peace
negotiations were conducted through the women. One or two of the women
of the one group would be sent to interview the women of the other
group to see if they were willing to forget the past and make friends.
It seems that it was largely the rancour of the women over their slain
relatives that kept the feud alive, the men of the two parties being
willing to make friends much more readily than the women.
An example of a long-continued feud, which, to all appearance, has been
in existence for several centuries, is that between the Aka-Bea and the
J̌a̤rawa of the South Andaman. The J̌a̤rawa have the advantage over the
Aka-Bea that their camps are situated in the dense forest and are
difficult to find, while the camps of the Aka-Bea are mostly along the
sea-coast. At the present day the J̌a̤rawa take some precautions against
being surprised in their camp by a hostile party. The camp is often
placed on the top of a hill and the trees in the neighbourhood are cut
down so that they have a good view. The paths leading to the camp are
also cleared and made wider than is usual in a native path. At times it
would seem that they keep sentries on the look-out.
The Aka-Bea and the J̌a̤rawa were inveterate enemies. Whenever two
parties of them met by any chance, or came in the neighbourhood of one
another, the larger party would attack the other. When the Settlement
of Port Blair was established, friendly relations were set up with the
Aka-Bea, and since that time the hostility of the J̌a̤rawa has been
directed not only against the friendly Andamanese (Aka-Bea, etc.) but
also against the inhabitants of the Settlement [52].
Such a thing as fighting on a large scale seems to have been unknown
amongst the Andamanese. In the early days of the Penal Settlement of
Port Blair, the natives of the South Andaman combined in large numbers
to make an attack on the Settlement, but this seems to have been an
unusual course of action in order to meet what was to them an
altogether unusual contingency, their territory having been invaded by
a large force of foreigners. Their only fights amongst themselves seem
to have been the brief and far from bloody skirmishes described above,
where only a handful of warriors were engaged on each side and rarely
more than one or two were killed. Of such a thing as a war in which the
whole of one tribe joined to fight with another tribe I could not find
any evidence in what the natives were able to tell me of their former
customs.
As showing within what narrow limits the different local groups held
communication with one another, it may be mentioned that till the year
1875 the Aka-Bea natives of Port Blair did not know of the existence of
the Aka-Ko̱l tribe, less than fifty miles distant, nor of any of the
tribes further north. As a general rule it may be said that no man knew
anything of any of the natives living more than twenty miles from his
own part of the country.