Taylor, A-C-Jivaro Kinship.pdf
-
Upload
joao-carlos-almeida -
Category
Documents
-
view
227 -
download
0
Transcript of 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
-
7/24/2019 Taylor, A-C-Jivaro Kinship.pdf
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-
-
7/24/2019 Taylor, A-C-Jivaro Kinship.pdf
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).
-
7/24/2019 Taylor, A-C-Jivaro Kinship.pdf
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
-
7/24/2019 Taylor, A-C-Jivaro Kinship.pdf
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-
-
7/24/2019 Taylor, A-C-Jivaro Kinship.pdf
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
--
-
7/24/2019 Taylor, A-C-Jivaro Kinship.pdf
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 ,
-
7/24/2019 Taylor, A-C-Jivaro Kinship.pdf
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