Taylor, A-C-Jivaro Kinship.pdf

7/24/2019 Taylor, A-C-Jivaro Kinship.pdf

1/14

I OU . NUKNI S O R G

ye

t another perspective to the list of fonnulmions lhmlhey arc investiga ting. Although in

other respects an instructive exercise. l do not believe that letting a computer work out " the

marriage network its

elf

.

as a struclUrcd totality" (chapter 9) wi

ll

so lve this epistemo

logical di lemma. sin

ce at

some

po

in t the

co

mputer would ha ve to

be

told what 1

look

o

r

22. It is crucia l to remember that it is models we arc talking about, which would prec lude

propositions such as Allen

's

(chapter 1

4),lha

t a Dravidian sys te m consistS fonn ally (i.e.

whether

or

notlhe members

of

he society recognize it)

of

two exogamous moieties," o r

Kronenfeld's ( 1993), .lhm Dmvidian-typc term inologies imply a " moiety-like di vision of the

society (wh

et

her ovenly recognized or named or not)." Hous

em

an and White (chapter 9)

sim

ilarly sp

ea

k of "dual orga

ni

zation"

and

exogamou

s'

super-set

s''

in populations in

which no such soc ioce mric groups are c ultura

ll

y recognized. I would recommend that we

avoid reifying the

po

l

ari7..ed

nows

of

genes and prestations

ge

nerated

by

the transitivity of

kin/affine tcnninological usages. except where such "groups" arc pan of a people's own

co

nceptualiza

ti

on

s.

8

varo Kinship: Simple and Compl

ex

Formulas:

A Dravidian Transformation Group

A

NN

E C H R I ST E TA Y L OR

This ch

ap

ter provides a brief description of some of

th

e sy nchronic varia

nt

s of a

Jdnshlp system (or a g roup of kinship systems) found in a set of tribal groups of

South Am e

ri

ca remarkable for its cul tural and sociological homogeneity. My a im

was to study

th

e variations of one so-called

Dra

vidian-type

kin

ship structure.

th

eir

limi

ts, and eld of practice a

nd

in so doing to i

ll

uminate, negatively, as it were, the

inv

a

ri

ant aspects of this struc

tu

re.

The mecha

ni

sms of tribal di

ffe

re

nt

iation in

th

ese Ji

va

roan groups of Western

Ama

zonia operate in two main areas: language and kinship .

Th

e differences sys

tematica

ll

y created from

th

e elements provided by these two cultural subsystems

co

ns

titute the main pillars of lribal identities. The Jivaroan group is divided into

two blocs: the Jivaro proper and the Candoa. At present the firs includes

fiv

e recog

nized "tribes" or dialect groups: the

Shu

ar,

th

e Ac huar,

th

e S

hi

wiar,

th

e Huambisa,

and the Agua runa. The second consists of

tw

o such groups: he Ka

nd

oshi and he

Sbapra. Within the Jivaro conglomerate, various levels of language are used 10 cre

ate differences as a fun ction of the sociological un

it

s in

vo

lve

d.

At the intratribal

level, these dif

fere

nces are of an essentia

ll

y prosodic nature: at the intertribal leve l,

they are bo1h phonetic (a l cring either he vowels or the consona

nt

s) and lexical

(t

e

rm

-for-te

rm

inversion

in

specific semantic areas: e.g., pininkltachau = beer bowl"/

"d

ish

"

in

Achuar, but "dish"/"beer bowl"

in

Shuar). I strongly suspect th at 1he

lin

guistic di fferences between

th

e

tw

o blocs work not only at he phonetic level but

al

so at the sywactica/ level (see Taylor 1985). This h

yp

othesis remains to be con

firm

ed , h

ow

ever; the two dialect gro

up

s have in

fac

t often been assigned to separate

langu

age

families, so great is he

ph

oneic and lexical di stance between

th

e

Ca

ndoa

and the Ji

va

ro dialects.

As

far as th

ei

r kinship systems are conce

rn

ed, the Jivaro bl oc . strictly speaking,

terminological

va

riants of a predomin antly Dravidian type ("

tw

o- line ter

nunologies" with type Ac

ro

ssness, to use theTrautmann-Ba

rn

es formul ation), com

bined wi h a symm etric prescr

ipli

ve marriage rule. Intertribal va riation

pl

ays on the

8


2/14

88 TAYLOR

genealogical and spatial distance between the prescribed spouses, and on the

ideO

logically

ut

not statistica lly- preferred form of marriage. The Candoa bloc, on

the other hand, features kinship systems that are apparently unique (as is

th

eir lan

guage), with no prescriptive marriage rule and with hybrid terminologies combi

n

ing Eskimo, Iroquois, and Dravidian elements.

At

first

glance, the Candoa systems

seem to fall under the heading of semicomplex structures (given th

ei

r prohibi

tive definition of marriage and their spec

ifi

c

v o c b u ~ r y

for affines) or even, taking

into account the absence of uniline

al

de

sce

nt groups, to belong to the field of com

plex structures. t should be stressed, at this point,

th

at all Jivaro-Candoa societies

reckon descent bilaterall

y:

their elementary social units are open kindred groups,

more or less inclusive according to context and social circumstances.

For the sake of clarity and brevity, only three varia

nt

s a re examined here: the

Achuar and

th

e Aguaruna from the Jivaroan bloc and the Kandoshi from

th

e Candoan

bloc. I begin with the Achuar case for heuristic reasons, and not because I consider

their system to be more prototypical or original,' ' in evolutionary tenns, than

that of the other Jivaroan groups.

THEACHUAR VARIANT

The Achuar s basic territorial units (local groups) and their preferential zones of

intennarriage are isomorphic. These units , which I call endogamous nexi,'' co

m

prise on average I

00

to 150 persons,

or

some ten scattered households. The

rul

e is

that marriage takes place between close bilat

er

al cross cousin s; in indigenous te

rms,

the potential spouse is designated by the reference tenn wahe, usua

ll

y glossed as

child of the father s male affine (FWBCh

.

Sister exchange is highly valorized

and statistically very frequent; nevertheless, from

th

e male standpoint, marriage is

ideologically skewed toward FZD, the wife's father appearing, in this case, more

strongly affinali zed than if he were a consanguineal relation of ego's mother (

MB .

However, women rever

se

HF's

va

lence and te

nd

to define him in t

er

ms of mother's

sibling. The

re

sidence pattern is prolonged temporary uxorilocaliry (an average

of

ten years). The following are among the special features

of

the Achuar system:

I.

Genealogical closeness is valorized between

th

e spouses, and even a

strong symbolic assimilation of

th

e spousa l relation to that of

opposite-sex siblings.

2. Sororal polygyny is generalized and quasi-''prescriptive'': this results

in the matrimonial and residential dispersal of sets of brothers, wh o

cannot share

th

e same immediate affines (

th

ere is no synchron ic

repetition of marriage,

th

en, but a necessa

ry

diachronic reiteration).

3. Notwithstanding

th

e classificatory points of view of ego. his brothers

and his parallel cousins are rigorously identical, as

in

all classical

Dravidian systems (i.e., my cross cousin

wahe)

is also cross cousin

forB,

FB

S, MZS, etc.).

ro Kinship

89

4. An operator of kin distance is present, and it divides according to

context , recognized coQsanguineal or affinal relations into real

nekas) and branch, peripheral kana).

5 Levirate (the inheritance, by a brother, of

hi

s deceased brother's

wives), also quasi-prescriptive, is practiced.

6. There is fa irly strong genealogical amnesia at G

2

(as a rule only the

four grandpare

nt

s nd sometimes not even

th

ese--can be reca lled).

Lastly, it should be noted that

th

e most frequent forms

of

irregular marriage

are with classificatory daughters and mothers, in other words, with temlino

logical consanguines (either a wife of the deceased father or a daughter of an

abducted wife), and very rarely wi th

ZD

or

FZ

(affines), the last two unions being

regarded as particularly incestuous. In this,

th

e Achuar (and the Shuar, whose kin

ship system is identical to

th

at of the Achuar, except that

th

ere appears to be an

ideological bias in favor

of MB

rather than FZH) clearly stand apa

rt

from many

other Amazonian groups, notably those of the Guyanese area, who often combine

cross-cousin and ob lique marriage (

i.

e . between ego and

FZ

or ZD).

It is readily ev ident from inspection of table 8-1 that the Achuar tenninology of

reference corresponds to the most classic of two-line terminologies, those that,

within the last twenty years, have been associated with the Amazonian

Dr

av idian

systems. The voca

ti

ve tenninology, or tenninology of address, however, shows sig

nificantdepartures from this pattern, which repay close examination. The principles

that govern it may be summa

ri

zed as follow

s:

I For a male ego, all male relatives, affines or consanguines, keep their

reference tenn.

2.

For a female ego, all female relatives, consanguines or affines, are

terminologica

ll

y consanguinized (i.e., HM becomes M, etc.), except

HZ.

3. With one exception, all cross-sex affinal relations are consanguinized

by

one

partner and affinalized

by

the other (e.g., WM calls

ego

son

in-law -awem,

o

affine-,

while he calls her mother - nukua,

G consanguine). The exception concerns relations between cross

cousins, who call each other brother/sister umaru) before

marriage. and cross cousin

waheru)

after marriage; in o

th

er

words, on

ce

ego's female cross cousin marries alter, she is no longer

sister but female affine (this is diagrammed in figure 8-1 ): the

cross cous

in

married by

ego

is cal led spouse.

In

an

ear lier discussion (Taylor 1983), I analyzed how

th

e asymmetric valence

of male and female terms of address worked and explored the reasons for it. Briefly,

the asymmetry

co

rresponds to the marking

of

matrimonial projections for an ego

(subsuming not only the prescribed marriage

wi th

the father

's

real brother-in-law

's

child [FZHCh and/or MBCh, but also the inheritance of deceased broth

ers'

mar-


3/14

190

TAYLOR

Table 8-1

Achuar Ki n Terms

G

G

'

GO

G'

G

G

G '

GO

G'

G

Reference tenns

Consanguines

Affines

apachi. nukuchi (FF, MF,

MM,

FM ... )

apa (F, FB, FFBS ... iich (MB. FZH . WF. . .

nuku (M. MZ.

MZD

... ) t

satsar WM.

FZ.

MBW

...

llflQi

opposite

-sex

sibling)

yachi

sibling. m.s.)

kai

s ibling. w.s.)

uchi (S, BS . ./S.

ZS

... )

wahe

a

f.

GO.

opposite sex)

sai

(:tf.

PO.

m.)

yuar

af. GO. w.)

cme (BS. DH .. ZS, DH .)

nawant (D.

BD

... 0 ZD ... awe (00. SW

.

. ZD,

DH

... )

a

pam

nukua

umam

yatsuru

kaim

uchim

flQIVQfllfll

tiranki (SS. SO, OS, DO ... )

Ad

dress

tenns

Consanguines

apachim. nukuchiru

rirankchint

Affines

iichm. wearu

mtkua

u

am before marriage)

waherchi

a

fter marria

ge

with alter)

nuamlaishm be tween spouses)

saim

) 11{/fll

lii\ Cfll

11011011/0

riage ties; whence the reciprocal affinalization

of

sib

lin

gs

of

spouses), combined

with a mechanism for neutralizing affinity designed to attenuate the affinal char

acter

of

members of a co-resident endogamous kindred conceived in terms

of

a unit

of

cons

ub

stantial

ity.

The Achuar model thu s offers a perfect fit with

th

e Dravidian canon, and in

deed doubly

so:

both in the sense

of

Trautmann and Barnes' ''type A crossness

(cf.

table 8-2) and

in

the sense

defi

ned by Dumont , inas

mu

ch as

it

is exp

li

citly founded,

from the indigenous van

ta

ge point, on the transmission

of

an alliance relation that

is

always defined, man or woman speaki

ng

,

in

tem1s

of

male genealogical positions:

while

all

women in thi s system are ambiguous from the standpoint

of

the affinity/

Figu

re

8-1

Consanguinization and Affinalization in

Achu

ar Addre

ss

Relations of males

to

emales

- - - Relations of females to males

Affinization

+ Consanguinlzation

,

,

,

,

,

,

+

,

,

,

,

Ji v ro Kinship

19 1

, +

~

, +

+

consanguinity opposi

ti

on (except for leviratic female cross cousins), since they

consanguinize their affi nes or are consanguinized by them, men, who anchor the

relation, are always clearly defined as e

ith

er affines or consanguines exclusively.

THEAGUARUNA VARIANT

The Aguaruna share with the Achuar the following

fea

tures:

I

Intertwined bilateral kindreds formi ng an endogamous nexus, except

that these units arc considerab

ly

more extended than for the Achuar,

since they comprise an average

of

three hundred persons. or from

twenty

to

twenty-five households.

2.

Sister exchange, sororal polygyny, inheritance

of

the brothers' wives

and temporary prolonged uxorilocality.

3. Distinc

ti

on between close/real and peripheral

kin.

The prescripti

ve

spou se, defined as the child

of

the father 's male affine, is here,

too ; marriage is said to take place between people who call each other antsug a

term that defines bilate

ral

cross cous

in

s

in

particular. A priori, then,

amsug

would

be

equivalent to the Achuar

waiie.

Nevertheless, there is clearly a discrepancy be

tween the model given by informants, the model that comes out

in

the nomencla

ture, and the one that emerges from the statistics (Brown 1984; Guallart

19

89).


4/14

192 TAYLOR

b le 8-2

Comparison

of

Classifications

of

Distant Kin:

Ir

oquois (Type B

),

Achuar

Dra

vidian (Type A), Awajun

(Ag

uaruna), Kandoshi

Kintype

Type B

Type A

Awajun

Kandoshi

FFZS

F X,G

I

F

Col. G/nonkin

FFZD

x.c

M

M

Col. G/nonkin

FFZSch

B,Z

X.G

0

XD,XZ

Col. G

0

/nonkin

FFZDch

X

,G

0

B,Z

XB.XZ

Col. G

0

/nonkin

FFZSSch

S

.D

x

XCh

CoL

G

0

/nonkin

FFZSDch

X.G'

S.D

XCh

CoL G

0

/

nonkin

FFBDSch

S, D

x

XCh

CoLG

0

/nonkin

FFBDDch X.G '

S,D

XCh

CoL G

0

/nonkin

FZSch

S.D

x

XCh

Co

l.

GOfnonkin

FZ

Dch

X.G

S.D XCh

CoL c ononkin

FM

BS

F

x

XF Col.

G/nonkin

F

MBD

x . c

M M

CoL Gt

nonkin

FMBSch B,Z

X,G

0

XB

.

XZ

CoL G

0

/nonkin

FMBD

ch

X,G

0

B

,Z

XB,XZ

CoL

G

0

/nonkin

MBS ch

S. D X.G '

XCh

CoL

G

0

/nonkin

MBDch

X, G' S,D

XCh

CoL

G

0

/n

onkin

From the s ched

ul

e

of

Aguaruna refe rence terms in table 8-3, it is immediately

obvious that this nomenclature differs noti

cea

bly from Achuar terminology. Al

though the terms for G

2

and G

2

are the

same

as those used by the Achuar (aside

from phonetic permutations), classification for kin

in o

G

0

and

G'

is

di

stin

c

t:

L In

G

(m. s.), all men are

F

(apag), except MB (diich ) and

WF

(weag) ;

all

wo

men are M

(dukug),

except

WM (tsatsag).

For a

male ego, there are therefore three male kin types in

G'

(F, MB,

WF) and two female types (M, WM).

2. G

0

accordingly, also has

fiv

e kin term

s:

B

,

Z, female

c

ross

cousins (antsug), male cross cous

in

s (saig), and

spo

uses of BIZ

(waheg) .

3. In

G', S,

and D (ego's children and those

of

his same-sex

siblings) are opposed both to the children of opposite-sex siblin

gs

(aweg)

and to the

c

hildren

of

opposite-sex cross cousins (or

children

of

amsug), who are ca

ll

ed ajika (m.) and nawasa (w.).

Women

's

reference terms are the mirror im age

of

men's: where men use three

terms, women use two and vice versa . Here again, sexual dichotomy is

se

ized upon

as a device to transfo rm affinal relations into consanguineal ones on

one

genealogi

ca

l l

eve

l while

emp

hasizing this dichotomy in the adjacentgenerations.

ivaro Kinship 193

ble

8-3

Aguaruna Terminology of-Reference (Male Ego)

cl

apach dukuclr

MF.

FF,

MFB, FFB ... MM, FM. FMZ. MMMZ ...)

c'

apag

diich

weag

F. FB, FZH ...

M

WF,HF

dukug

dukug

tsa rsag

M,MZ,FZ ..

MBW

WM.HM

co

yarsug

saig wah

eg

B

FZS. MBS ...

BW

ub

tm

011 SIIg

Z,MZD,FBD

FZD,

MBD

G'

uchin

aweg ajika

S. BS ...

zs

MBDS , FZDS

IIOIV0 11

aweg

llllW

S

D,BD

ZD

M

BDD

,FZDD

Gl

rijan

The most striking aspect

of

this nomenclature is obviously the markin

g of

MB

, and the

distinction-which

is made explicit here while remaining latent for the

Achu

ar-betwee

n MB and FZH.

Th

ese two are often confused in practice owingto

the frequency of marriage by sister exchange. This distinction, which is not men

tioned in the Achu

ar's

spontaneous description

of

the ideal marriage, becomes one

of

the main axes

of

the Aguaruna system, sinceit induces the third element in the

terminology, the WF tenn. How can it be

exp

lained?

A close look at the genealogical data provided by the ethnographers who have

studied the Aguaruna reveals a curious paradox: antsug, who are given as the ideal

marriage partners, systematically avoid marrying each other, despite the ribald

jok

ing relationship they entertain. ln fact, marria

ge

occurs in statisti cally very signifi

cant proportions (50 percent of the 70 percent of marriages between

co

usins )

between

children of opposite-sex matrilateral cross cous s.

That being s aid, the

matrilaterality

of

the marriage is more ideological than real, as the cross cousins in

question are most often bilateral. Now these relatives destined to marry each other

(children

of

antsu

g

call each other BIZ before marriage, as

do

the Achuar, but in

thi

s case with a genealogical justification, for their respective fathers are indeed

classificatory

br

others and are called

F

by ego . But, and as

amo

ng the Achuar,

these

BIZ

are called

waheg

(opposite-sex cross cousin) as soon as they take a

spouse. In sum, the real marriage does not occur at

aU

between referential a/1/sug

o

pposite-sex cross cousins), but between the children

of

antsug, that is, classifica

tory brother

s

and sisters, who still regard themselves as

antsug

(cross cousins)

by virtue

of

the fact th

at

ego's fa th

er

a

nd

alter's mother are related

as

fictitious

siblings. In other words, cross

co

usins defined as matrilateral are assimilated to real

Opposite-sex siblings.

If

the Aguaruna claim to marry their

amsug

while avoiding


5/14

194

TAYLOR

Figure 8-2

Aguaruna Terminology: Key Genealogical Positions

p ch

dukuch

p g

dukug

dich

dukug

y tsug

go

ntsug

uchin

weg

jik

nuw s

doing so, it is because they identify their form of marriage with that practicedby the

Achuar (or to be more accurate, that

of

the Shuar, whose ideal marriage is ideologi

caJiy skewed toward MBD), in other words wi th the exchange

of

children between

brother and sister,

or

more precisely between brothers-in-law.

This appears quite clearly when examining the way vocative usages transform

the vocabulary

of

affinity (figure 8-3). The terminology

of

address is indeed bipar

tite and reproduces. with the exception

of

a few details, the Achuar reference vo

cabulary: for instance, the special terms of address for ego's real affines in G

1

(WF

and WM) are set aside because they are felt to be ''too strong (indigenousgloss)

and replaced by the terms diich (reference MB) and dukug (M); the spouses

of

ego's children's also shed their specific tem1s ajika/nuwasa), which are replaced

by the reference term for

c

hildren of opposi te-sex siblin

gs aweg)

(see figure

8-3).

Although Aguaruna terms

of

address reproduce the Achuar reference vocabu

lary, they also add a new element, namely, an incipient separation between lineaJs

and collaterals, since F and M are disti11guishcd from their siblings by the use

of

special diminutives. One finds the beginnings, too, of a rule

of

generational merg

ing, ascendants in G

2

being assimilated to G

1

( because of our love for them ).

These features, which play a min

or

role for the Aguanma, will move to the fore

front in the Kandoshi kinship system.

Summarizing, then, union between rea l amsug (bilateral opposite-sex cross

cousin) is indeed an Aguaruna ideal inasmuch as marriage is always perceived in

ivaro

inship

195

igure 8-3

Transformations Introduced into Aguaruna Terminology of Address by Marriage

Before marriage

fter marriage

6 =)

=)0

6 =

=

6 =)

=

0

. 6

=

=

terms of this structure.

It

is the position of bilateral first cross cousins that deter

mines the repetition of the marriage, which is treated terminologicallyas though it

were between close cross cousins antsug) since once the marriage takes effect, the

kin

involved are reassigned to the positions

of

MB

(FZ

H) and MBCh. In this sense

we are indeed dealing with a prescriptive rule, not only because a

ll

marriages that

take place are treated as though they followed the norm, but also because the rule is

clearly embedded in the tem1inology, even if it is in a fonn that

ca

nnot

be

immedi

ately deduced from the classificatory distributionof genealogical positions.

The consanguinization mechanisms inherent in all Jivaro kin systems operate

here

in

a particularly complex manner becau

se

a third category has been introduced

midway between the class of real consanguines and that of real affines, and that

is the category of affinal consanguines or

vir

tual affines (since th

ese

people are

affines only by virtue of past and future, not present, marriages). Paradoxically, this

three-part division stems from a scrupulous adherence to the fundamentally two

part Dravidian logic: both because it supposes and reproduces a perennialized alli

ance relationship and because it plays exclusively on the necessary and sufficient

i

stinctionbetween affinity and consangujnjty.The originality

of

the Aguaruna sys-


6/14

t_ V I A y l U K

tern is that it mak

es

a radical distinction betweenconceptual principles and genea

logical pos itions, which may

we

ll

find themselves bisected by the affine/consan

guine opposition rather than falling neat ly into o ne or the o

th

er of the two catego

ries. In this variant, for instance, some men are affected with the

same

ambivalence

as

some

women in the Achuar model;

in

fact, MB occupies exactly the

same

place

as

FZ

in the Achuar t

ype,

and

hi

s daughter (MBD) occupies Z

's

. This bivalence

does not prevent

MB

--


7/14

l ~ S TAYLOR

Figure 8-4

Kandoshi Social Space

mo ciriti

c

I

os e

n m i s

2. A clear distinction between these collaterals and their spouses, who,

save

two exceptions, all belong to a

si

ngle class, whatever their

genealogi

ca

l level ("husbands/w ives

of

s iblings,"

sambaririlmasi

i

.

In other words, ego uses descriptive terms

forM

, F, MMIMF, FF/FM, S, D, SpF,

SpM, ChW, and ChH, and a massively classificatory nomenclature for all other

recognjzed kin.

The

only two collateral genealogical positions receiving special

treatment are those

of

FZH and, curiously enough, MZH, both designated by the

tenn

iiro (very close to saeru, cross cousin WB/ZH in Achuar; saig in Aguaruna),

and that

of

WB/ZH (m.s.), designated by the t

er

m

lirikama.

Note, in passing, the

odd configuration

of

the terminology for effective affines

of

adjacent generations:

for a man, the term

ngoiri

applies to WF and to

SW

or DH, the term

kumini

being

reserved for WM; for a female ego, it is the inverse, the inclusive term being kumini,

applied to

HM

and

SW

, while

ngosiri

is reserved for HF But the symmetry is not

perfect, for women use a specific term for DH

paneari),

the only term of the triad

that is not reciprocal (see figure 8-6).

ivaro Kinship 199

Figure 8-5

The Kandoshi Kinship Circle (Male

Ego)

0

2

I I

.

Key:

1.

kumari MM FM ;2. paciri MF

FF;

3.apari F; 4anieri M; 5. pari

Ch;

6 sanci W7. ngosiri WF ;

8

kumini WM;

9ngoSiri DH

SW

.

Furthermore, an d unlike the case

of

the other Jivaro groups, Kandoshi vocative

terminology is very close to the reference vocabulary, except that proper names are

frequently used in place of the correspondjng kin term, that uncles" sibari, male

siblings

ofF,

M,

FF

,

FM

,

MF

, MM) are called

iichi (seejiich/ii

chi Achuar/Shuar:

FZH, MB, SpF; Aguarunadiich, MB), and that collaterals' spouses are called kuniera

(and reciprocally), a tenn derived from the Sparush

cuiiadolcwiada

(brother-in

~ a w s i s t e r i n l a w In short, discrepancies between the

two

vocabularies appear

only two areas: that, after marriage and taking uxorilocality into account,

of

opposite-sex co-resident consanguines

kunieta)

(i e., potential spouses by levirate,

Which marks the relationship here

just

as it does in

all

other Jivaro groups) and that ,


8/14

I

Fi

gure

8-6

Kandoshi Tenns of Address between Ego and Spouse's Parents and between

Ego and Child 's Spouse

after marriage,

of

same-sex but non-co-res ident elder collaterals.

The

meaning of

the

se

vocatives is given bel

ow

.

Although there is relatively little difference between address and reference for

the Kandoshi, compared with the o ther Jivaro systems, one mechanism, unknown

in the res t

of

this c ultural group, needs to be mentioned, and that is genealogical

reclass ification as a function

of

relative age. Any kinsperson may be shifted to a

differem category in accordance with the age difference between him/her and ego:

for instance, FeB is an uncle

( ibari).

while FyB becomes a brother''

(suwanCi),

and

so on. Thi s flexibility affects classificatory terms only and obviously does not

concern ego's lineals or his effec

ti

ve affi nes. Application

of

this generational prin

ciple, together with vocative practices such as the use

of

prope r names, fosters both

extreme dege nealogization and sing

ul

a

ri

za

ti

on

of

individual classificatory grids.

On the cognitive level, these mechanisms nurture and explain the high degree

of

genealogical amnesia- lateral

ratl1

er than vertical, as

in

the other Jivaro groups

reported among the Kandoshi.

Candoa kinship terminology is indeed strange, and at first glance has little in

common with the Jivaro systems. That being said, the differences between the two

groups of variants beara family likeness with those that set apart the Jivaro variants

proper. Furthermore, many explicit features

of

the Candoa system are reminiscent

of

latent elements

of

the Aguaruna model, such as the lineal/collatera l distinction.

Both

sys tems share a three-part c lass

ifi

cation, in particular, except that it works in

very different ways, and both have a s pec ific vocabulary for real affines. But

do

these formal similarities mean

id

entica l s tructure

s?

ivaro ns

hip

2

Consider Kandoshi marriage in practice. Because marriage is biased toward

nonkin nonenemi

es (tonari),

the matrimonial network would seem indefinite ly

expandable. And yet this openness is refuted by the statis

ti

cs: the available genea lo

gies (of which th ere are few, it i s true; see Amadio and d'Emilio 1983) attes t the

existence

of

a few marriages between kin from the same l

oc a

l group three genera

tions down the line, and above all a proliferation

of

marriages between residential

groups having intermarried as a whole four

ge

nerations before.

The

possibility of closing the cycle after three

ge

nerations has a simple explana

ti

on: taken in conjunc

ti

on with uxorilocality, genealogical amnesia works in such a

way that only three

gene

rations are needed for descendants

of

close consanguines

(maaciriti)

in

G

2

to nd th

emse

lves in the class

of

mutu

al

'nonkin

(see

figure 8-

7).

Once this is accepted, the next step is to ask whether the genea logical o

ri

enta

tion of Candoa marri age is as open

a

Taylor, A-C-Jivaro Kinship.pdf

Documents

Transcript of Taylor, A-C-Jivaro Kinship.pdf