Sided with Omaha but no Twist:

Three Logics of Alyawarra Kinship

• Woodrow W. Denham, American University, Dubai, wdenham@ncia.net U. A. E.

• Douglas R. White, University of California, Irvine drwhite@uci.edu U.S.A.

Cultural Structures and Distributed CognitionSession 2: Ethnographic Cases for Potential Formalization.

Cultural Structures and Distributed CognitionChair: Dwight Read

Anthropological Sciences Meeting, New Orleans 2002 Friday 1:30-1:45

Air photo of Gurlanda Camp 1972.

The Fieldwork Experiment

• This paper derives from an experiment in quantitatively oriented fieldwork conducted by Denham in Central Australia thirty years ago.

• The experiment was designed explicitly to explore differences between what Aborigines actually did and what they said they did when anthropologists interviewed them.

• The attempt to discover what they did rested on observing and recording their activities, then using computers to seek and extract patterns in the coded data that would not have appeared in traditional ethnographic data.

Domestic activities.

Denham fieldwork ’71-2: data        File01 Genealogies and vital

statistics - 377 records – one focus here        File02 Census data - 264 records        File03-20 digitized maps of 17

Alyawarra camps        File21 Meteorological records -

146 days        File22 Kinship term applications

- 104 egos x 225 alters = 23,400 applications – the other focus here

       File23 Sleeping Group Compositions - 162 records

       File24 Residential Group Compositions - 258 records

      File25 Task Group Compositions - 2490 records

       File26-27 Observation distribution records

       File28-78 Behavior Observations - 41,809 records of numerically coded data derived from 200 hours of observations spanning 86 days

       Documents - 500+ pages of field notes and historical letters

       Photographs - 217 portraits, 90 B+W prints, 230 color slides, 7 air photos

       Other graphics - 3 Alyawarra Territory Dreaming maps,17 camp maps, 12 residence plans, 30 sketches

       Genealogical diagrams containing all people belonging to the 17 countries represented in the research population

       Audio recordings - 14 hours raw, 77 minutes edited

Some members of the research population.

This person’s use of kinship terms for others numbered 1-225 is recorded here while they view other cards containing each alter’s photograph as mounted on alter’s card in the area indicated by the arrow

Alyawarra fieldwork: one of the methods used is Photodeck Cards for data collection on kin-term usage

Our reanalysis

• Our new analysis examines the kin-term usage data elicited with the Photodeck cards on each of 104 egos x 225 alters, in relation to a

• network analysis of regular equivalence in marriage patterns between lineages using the genealogical and marriage data on all 264 individuals in the region studied, plus 113 ancestors. Lineages are treated as regular-equivalent if they have equivalent relations to equivalent sets of other lineages (White and Reitz 1983).

• We examined these data in the light of discrepant logics noted by Denham, Chad McDaniel, and John Atkins (1979) in Aranda and Alyawarra Kinship: A Quantitative Argument for a Double Helix Model. American Ethnologist 6(1):1-24.

The original and new results: an overview

• Denham, McDaniel, and Atkins (1979) found evidence for a Cultural Model of the Alyawarra (and Aranda) kinship system as one where

– generational times were 50% longer for males than for females,– but the discrepancies of actual kin term usage and this model were

about 23%, – some of which was due to use of Omaha terms that merged generations,

and some to nonreciprocal use of terms.

• We reevaluate these discrepancies by

– a network analysis of equivalence classes in marriage behavior, – locating the discrepancies in kin-term usage within the kinship network,

and – deriving an analysis of the different logics-in-play from this evidence

Four Logics Operative in Alyawarra Kinship: Summarized 

* Denham et al. 1979: p. 12 for row 2, overall fit; p. 10 for row 4, where we find a potential W is often equated with M, and a WB with MB (the Omaha pattern of terminology). A sided marriage network is one in which marriages can be classified into two supersets such that parents of bride and groom tend to come from opposite sides. A viri- or uxori-sided network is one that is sided, with sidedness respectively assigned to males by patrilineal inheritance, or to females by matrilineal inheritance. The Alyawarra are a case in which both tendencies exist, i.e., the marriage network is both viri- and uxori-sided (Houseman 1997).

Logic Description Percentage Fit of Behavior

Logic0 Shared Semantic Rules for Named Sections: Membership rules as applied by individuals

100% for patri-descent 99% in marriages

Logic1 Shared Kin Terms, as applied by individuals 87% in Opposite patri-side

67% in Same patri-side *

Logic2 Social Organization via Emergent Behavior, sensitive to age groupings

75% +/-

Logic3 Variable use of Omaha Terms, signaling marital exclusions and lineage-based inclusions

16% in W,WB terms and in M,MB terms *

Logic0: Tetradic rules for (four-) named marriage sections are constituted by three local principles of equivalence classes

amongst relatives, plus a proviso that the rules apply uniformly:

• 1. Equivalence of siblings but nonequivalence of cross-cousins.

• 2. Equivalence of alternating generations in male and female lines.

• 3. Marriage cannot take place between those of the same equivalence class.

• 4. All rules apply uniformly, and uniformly to equivalence classes (if the brothers in an equivalence class marry into another such class, then so do the sisters, and vice versa).

• Note that these might well be rules that hold for all four-section systems.

Triangles -male sibling equivalence classes Circles - female sibling equivalence classes Marriage

=

=

=

Tetradic Logic0 (e.g., Section Memberships): Egocentric

Solid lines assign relative equivalence classes both by descent rules (patrilines, matrilines) and by affinity (marriage). The equivalence classes would hold from the perspectives of sibling sets 1/2, 9/10, and 17/18, .

Dotted lines show the variety of equivalence classes to which children might be assigned for women in equivalence class 4.

Alyawarra section names are Kamara, Pityara, Burla and Ngwariya

1 2 3 4 5 6

Kamara = Pityara Kamara

 

7 8 9 10 11 12

 Burla Ngwariya = Burla 

13 14 15 16 17 18

  Kamara Pityara Kamara = Pityara

Section Rules (Logic0): Neither Genealogical nor Static

• More general than kinship: section rules are also used in ceremonials, beyond kinship proper

• Based on an equivalence-class logic that applies to but is not subsumed by genealogical relationships

– Anthropological models of sections often infer marriage patterns from equivalence-class logics as if the genealogical marriage rules were implied by these rules when in fact they are not.

– Kinship terminologies often fit the section logic and again are often used by anthropologists to imply marriage rules that do not in fact match actual behavior.

– Classificatory kinship terminologies consistent with sections require careful consideration of equivalence-classes among complex bundles of genealogical relationships.

Ceremonial activities.

Kinship Dynamics of Sections: Historically, 0 to 4 to 8, in 30 years

• The four-section system of Logic0 was probably adopted by the Alyawarra in the 1850s from a society just to the west, at the same time as is documented for their Aranda neighbors.

• Ditto for an eight-subsection variant of that system, which was adopted by the Northern Aranda in the 1880s. What we call Logic1 — Models of the Kin Term System— includes Radcliffe-Brown’s model of this system.

• The Northern Aranda have eight named subsections, while only four sections are named among the Alyawarra, with eight unnamed subsections implicit in the kinship terminology

Octadic Logic0: Tetradic Logic0 extended to 8 subsections

Historically, ca. 1880: “each of [the] sections was divided into two, so that, to a [Ngwariya] man, for example, only half of the [Burla] women were eligible as wives, the other half being Unkulla or forbidden to them” (Spencer and Gillen 1927:320-322).

= 2Burla

1 2 3 4 5 6

1Kamara = 2Pityara 2Kamara 7 8 9 10 11 12

2Burla 1Ngwariya = 1Burla 13 14 15 16 17 18

1Kamara 2Pityara 2Kamara = 1Pityara 1Ngwariya 1Burla 2Ngwariya

1Pityara

Original

Modified

Octadic Logic0 provides a basis for a complete inventory of fit not only to the implicit eight-subsection groupings implied

by informants’ designations of their first choice in appropriate usage of kinship terms applied to specific alters,

but also:

  Where and to what extent do violations of subsection logic correspond to irregularities in the network patterns of Logic2

  To what extent usages are systematically non-reciprocal (i.e., not merely as a result of the elicitation methods) given both the network and subsection framing of Logic2

  Where precisely and exhaustively Omaha terms are employed in Logic3

  These questions will be the subject of a separate article.  Meanwhile, partial answers are provided by our network analysis.

Artificial closure of equivalence class marriage rules in Radcliffe-Brown’s ‘Kariera’ model: one of “repeated sister exchange”

Artificial closure of equivalence class marriage rules in R-B’s ‘Aranda’ model: “sister exchange in alternate generations”

From Logic1 Logic2, ‘open’ format: one of many possibilities, (Denham et al., 1979 and Tjon Sie Fat 1981, 1983)

Anthropological Fictions and Generalizations (Logic1)

Logic1, but a false image: Kin terms ‘fit’ R-B’s 8-subsection ‘Cultural Model’ of ‘normative’ Alyawarra and Northern Aranda kinship (Aranda-type). A good ‘fit’ of model and terminology but not to behavior: the Alyawarra have no sister exchanges, etc.

Other Generalizations of Logic1 Logic2: Network Models of Kinship Organization,

attuned to age differences and strategies

‘open’ format: 0 age difference between spouses

‘open’ format: 14 year age difference

(as per Denham et al. 1979)

‘open’ format: 28 year age difference

Figure same as above, but steeper diagonal

Logic2 is a Logic1 kin-term pattern, but now analyzed in relation to social (network) organization, not just the kin-term pattern alone

A 1 D 1 K1 N2 B 2 B1 P2 D 1 C 1 N1 K2 A 2 D 2 B2 P1 C 1 B 1 K2 N1 C 2 D 2 B1 P2 D 1 A 1 N2 C 2 K1 B1 P2 B 2 D 1 C 1 N1 K2 A 2 D 2 B2 P1 C 1 K2 N1 B 1 D 2 C 2 P2 K1 A 1 B1 N2

Key: Assuming that ego is in section K, then K,P,B,N are section designations and K1,K2, through N1,N2 are implicit 8-subsection designations. A 1, A 2, B 1, B 2, C 1, C 2, D 1 and D 2 are distinct kin terms consistent with 8 implicit subsections.

Logic2?: The ‘Open Format’ proposed by Denham et al. (1979)

Red= matrilines

To see if Denham et al.’s Logic2 is a network pattern

• We place Alyawarra lineages into regular equivalence classes in a network diagram according to whether they have equivalent relations to equivalent sets of other lineages (White and Reitz 1983), using the genealogical and marriage data on all 377 individuals.

• Actual patterns of marriage choice, social organization, and patterns of alliance then emerge as an element of the logic, i.e., a logic realized in the context of the social network. This is the real-time decision-making ‘realization’ of cultural models, complete with a time dimension.

• In the following results, we find the ‘open’ format model of Denham et al. (1979) does fit the equivalence-class patterns of actual behavior ‘roles’ in the social network.

K ’ L ’ M ’ N ’ O ’ P ’ Q ’

Logic2: The actual kinship network with social organization given by regular equivalence analysis of inter-lineage marriages (key: red =mothers, black =fathers, lite marriages )

Node Colors: blue-Kamara, green-Burla, yellow-Pityara, orange-Ngwariya Node Size: proportional to age (smallest black nodes are unknown/deceased)

key

N=all 377 individuals

Logic2: The actual kinship network and social organization; this time the colors are those of the languages spoken by individuals

K ’ L ’ M ’ N ’ O ’ P ’ Q ’

Key to Languages Spoken: blue-Aranda, yellow-Alyawarra , green-in between

Logic2: The actual kinship network and social organization, with a close-up of the network of Alyawarra speakers

(red and black arrows=mothers, fathers; green lines=marriages)

•6 (early) red lines correspond to “open format” 28 year difference•87 red lines correspond to “open format” 14 year difference•7 red lines correspond to “open format” 0 year difference

Logic3: The actual kinship network, social organization, showing Omaha usage within the network of Alyawarre speakers

blue lines=marriage, green lines=Omaha terms such as W=M, WB=MB, found to be non-reciprocal and to exclude marriage

Use of Omaha terms excludes possibility of marriage

Difference between the Logics• The standard interpretation of kin-term Logic1 models of Aranda-type

(including Alyawarra) kinship (e.g., by R-B and Lévi-Strauss) is that of symmetric or direct exchange.

• The actual kinship network, where Logic1 Logic2, confirms Denham et al.’s (1979) ‘open format’ model, one of asymmetric or generalized exchange. It has:– No generational closure (no cycles of siblings-in-law)– No algebraic closure (rather there are open-ended alliances)– dynamically ‘open’ and subject to adjustments that follow from marriage

strategies (not static or locked into prescriptive rules)

• Analysis of signaling in Logic3 is – Consistent with this dynamic, signaling non-marriageable– Non-reciprocal in use of terms at behavioral level

Further, we see these results…• Kinship terminologies are egocentric

• But local rules have implications for the larger network structure, a point evident to participants: e.g., choices as to age of spouse co-vary with implications for reciprocity (same age) versus asymmetry (large age differences)

• The global network structure is the social organizational context in which to evaluate the terminologies, cultural models and decision models

… as consistent with Read’s theory of kinship terminologies as applied to

classificatory kinship

And that’s a good place to stop

ExternalWorld(continuous)

Senses Units

Instantiation

S ignSystem

Behavior

Goals/ S trategies

Decis ionSensoryP rocessing

Symbol System

CognitiveSystem M ental

Representation 1

M entalRepresentation 2

ConceptualS tructures

P HENOTYP E

Dwight Read 2001 Symposium : Cultural Idea System s: Logical S tructures and the logic of Instantiation (AAA Annual M eetings)

Actor and Group Positions in Social Network

Our additions to Read’s model of behavioral realization of last year

Use of signaling

Responses of others and behavioral effects on context

Concluding note on methods• It is easy to misunderstand the logics of equivalence classes in

Australian systems. Denham’s experimental field methods provided a different set of understandings of these logics.

• Anthropologists concerned with ‘modeling’ kinship, from R-B to Lévi-Strauss, have inferred prescriptive marriage rules from kin terms in interpreting their models. Denham’s methods also permit a network analysis that gives a better understanding.

• The Alyawarra case, we think, exemplify the underlying dynamics of the adaptive social organization that accompanies section systems generally. Denham’s methods might have benefited from interviews on how and when sections and subsections were introduced, how the unnamed subsections are reckoned, if at all, and informants’ reflections on how they determine the ‘Alyawarra way’ of reckoning the correct kinship term for alters.

Four Logics Operative in Alyawarra Kinship, recalled 

* Denham et al. 1979: p. 12 for row 2, overall fit; p. 10 for row 4, where we find a potential W is often equated with M, and a WB with MB (the Omaha pattern of terminology).

Logic Description Percentage Fit of Behavior

Logic0 Shared Semantic Rules for Named Sections: Membership rules as applied by individuals

100% for patri-descent 99% in marriages

Logic1 Shared Kin Terms, as applied by individuals 87% in Opposite patri-side

67% in Same patri-side *

Logic2 Social Organization via Emergent Behavior, sensitive to age groupings

75% +/-

Logic3 Variable use of Omaha Terms, signaling marital exclusions and lineage-based inclusions

16% in W,WB terms and in M,MB terms *

A more detailed summary• In Logic1 the Alyawarra strictly adhere to marriage rules and ‘normative’ kinship

terms that conform to marriage sections (cross-cutting exogamous sides) and unnamed endogamous matrimoieties that unify interleaved alternating generations.

• In Logic 2, the axiom of generational closure – that successive sibling-in-law links close into cycles in an endogamous group – does not apply because female age at marriage is significantly lower than that of males. The resulting extra-normative age bias yields recurrent patterns of marriage between patrilineages that are much more likely to be asymmetric than symmetric (as with sister exchange, for example). Patterns of marriage among the deceased are quickly forgotten, and no longer cast their shadow as a constraint on future behaviors. Thus wife-givers and wife-takers may engage in exceptional marriages that inflect Logic2 behaviors into new systemic patterns leading to lineage remapping of generations. This allows the “kinship system” to evolve dynamically across a class of network models influenced stochastically by age distributions at marriage.

• In Logic3, the unintended effect of demography (H>W age differences) is supplemented by widespread and intended use of extra-normative Omaha terminology as an exclusionary device that says, “don’t marry here”, but does so nonreciprocally.

The field data collected by Denham in 1971-72 are available in the Group Compositions in Band Societies archived on-line at

http://eclectic.ss.uci.edu/~drwhite/