Comparison between Warlpiri and Navajo Kinship Systems - Essay Example

? Comparison between Warlpiri and Navajo Kinship Systems Cultural anthropology as pertaining to kinship is concerned with the relationships between people as defined by culture (O’Neil, 2006), either by marriage (affinal relatives) or descent (consanguinal relatives) Morgan, and is fundamental in social organization, interaction, motivation and attitudes of any given community (O’Neil, 2006); in other words the study of kinship is concerned with both general and unique characteristics of the social life of humankind (Singarimbun, 1975). This paper will compare the kinship systems and terms of the Warlpiri group of Aboriginal Australians, who live on the edge of the Tanami desert in central Australia, and the Navajo Indians who live in Arizona, New Mexico, Utah and Colorado in America by looking at the way in which these systems influence their every day existence and associations within their own communities and beyond, including that of terms and names that are considered taboo within those systems. Kinship is determined in different ways within different societies but relates to two underlying principles of descent – unilineal and cognatic. Societies that are concerned with unilineal descent trace either their father’s (patrilineal) or their mother’s (matrilineal) group; those concerned with both their matrilineal and patrilineal descent are said to be concerned with cognative descent. Cognative traces can involve any of four variations including bilineal (matrilineal and patrilineal), ambilineal (both recognized, but individuals can choose which one they accept), parallel (females follow their matrilineal descent and males follow their patrilineal descent groups) and bilateral (descent is traced from all biological ancestors) (O’Neil, 2006). The Warlpiri operate within an Arandic system of kinship, whereby descent is recognized and traced via four different lines of descent (everyculture.com) and is therefore concerned with cognative descent. The Warlpiri kinship system is the means by which its members find their place in the universe, a guide for social behavior and regulations (Dousett, 2002). The hierarchical system of organization is complicated and includes conventional relationships established from both the paternal and maternal relatives (Laughren, 1982, p.72). Individual people are recognized in accordance with their real family and ancestors or their membership of a particular set (Bavin, 1991, p.323). They also focus on matrilineal, patrilineal and generational moieties, semi-moieties, and subsections. The subsection system disseminates the people into eight categories that distinguish between male and female members in each (everyculture.com). The Navajo, on the other hand, function within a matrilineal system and is thus unilineal. Every Navajo belongs to one of the sixty-four clans (everyculture.com), wherein membership is passed via the mother’s family. In the same way that clan membership is inherited in the female line of kinship, property is also inherited from the female side but advantage and property however, are passed from male to male, but the mother’s brother passes both to her (his sister’s) children. Although operating within a matrilineal system the Navajo also believe they are born for the clan of their father (everyculture.com). Two to six matrilineal clans can form a clan group if they consider themselves to be affiliated but they are not given a clan group name (Aberle, 1961). Within Warlpiri, as in other indigenous Australian systems, the ‘collaterals and lineals are merged’ (Frey, 2008), meaning that the system is extended to all people in the society and even further to those outside and beyond the society. The following diagram provides a way of illustrating Warlpiri genealogy, wherein it shows that an aunt is only found in reference to the father’s sister – no aunt is so named on the mother’s side – and the term uncle is only found on the mother’s side in reference to the mother’s brother. The father’s brother is thus referred to as ‘father’ rather than uncle, and the mother’s sister is referred to as ‘mother’ instead of aunt. As Ego refers to women as mother and men as father, he/she thus refers to their children as brothers and sisters rather than cousins; cousins are only recognised as children of Ego’s mother’s brother’s or father’s sister’s children (Dousett, 2002). Diagram 1: Warlpiri Kinship System (Dousett, 2002) This system of kinship is extended and continues out to the entire Warlpiri society, wherein everybody is accounted for and fits within a clear and discrete kin group to others. Dousett refers to this extension of kin classification as ‘bifurcate-merging’ , which is a classifactory system of genealogy. The Navajo too, because it functions within a matrilineal society, wherein people are associated to their mother’s clan, base their kinship terms on the principle of bifurcate merging. Diagram 2 provides a genealogical illustrationof the Navajo system which is the same as the Crow Kinship system, wherein all male members within the clan are referred to as brothers and the children of those brothers are referred to as children no matter what the generational link; in the same way all women of a clan are called mother or sister, and the brothers and mother’s sisters are the key ‘cooperative and succession units’ (Frey, 2008); this system extends across the whole kinship network. Diagram 2: The Navajo Kinship System (same as Crow) (Frey, 2008) Marriage within kinship is important in terms of providing new members and legitimizing descent, and works to strengthen ties between groups; marriage and descent thus complement each other and work together in providing internal and external organisation (Frey, 2008). The kinship system dictates the marriage rules, and within the Warlpiri group it is the skin group (a term used by many linguists to represent kin) to which each belongs that determines who they are and who they are not allowed to marry. There are eight skin groups in total that are based on a patrilineal system, whereupon a male child is given the same name as his father’s father (Bavin, 1991). Skin names for boys start with the letter J - Japangardi, Japanangka, Japaljarri, Jungarrayi, Jupurrula, Jangala, Jampijinpa, and Jakamarra; skin names for girls however, are identical to those of the boys but begin with the letter N, as in Napangardi (Dousett, 2002). Diagram 3 illustrates the skin group to which a person can marry. The diagram shows that a male within the Japaljarri skin group has a sister called Napaljarri, while a Jakamarra male has a Nakamarra sister, and so on. A Japaljarri and Nakamarra are allowed to marry, as too is a Napaljarri and a Jakamarra. The children of Nakamarra and Japaljarri are called Nungarrayi and Jungarrayi, while the children of Napaljarri and Jakakmarra are Napurrula and Jupurrula (Bavin, 1991, p.325). Diagram 3: The Warlpiri marriage regulations Japaljarri Nakamarra Napaljarri Jakamarra Japangardi Nampijinpa Napangardi Jampinjinpa Japanangka Napurrula Napanangka Jupurrula Jungarrayi Nangala Nungarrayi Jangala (Adapted from Bavin, 1991, p.324) The Navajo are not allowed to marry within their own clan, clan group or father’s clan but are sometimes permitted to marry somebody from their father’s clan group; therefore a Navajo cannot marry a genetically related or classificatory related cousin or cross-cousin from their own generation. Very often one marriage between a man and a woman may lead to further marriages within the same family; for instance the man’s brothers and sisters may then marry his wife’s brothers and sisters, and he and his sister’s son may also marry sisters. In much the same way, a group of siblings may all marry individuals from another but the same clan. Historically, polygamy was popular but today it is forbidden by tribal law (Aberle, 1961). Kin terms within Warlpiri are different to other nouns in that they are ‘relational rather than referential’ (Bavin, 1991, p.321), and because they categorize each individual in relation to each and every other person within their kin group. The mothers and their sisters are linked, as illustrated in Diagram 1; they are linked by one kin name, which is ‘ngati’; similarly, ‘ngamirni’ is used in reference to mother’s brother, and ‘pimirdi’ for father’s sister. Grandmothers and grandfather are named according to whether they are from the father’s side or the mother’s side; father’s father (grandfather) and his sister are referred to as ‘warringiyi’, and father’s mother (grandmother) and her brother are known as ‘yaparla’. Mother’s father (grandfather), on the other hand, and his sister are known as ‘jagitdi’, and mother’s mother (grandmother) and her brother are called ‘jigi’. The Warlpiri kin terms therefore, are based on matrilineal and patrilineal descent rather than on sex (Bavin, 1991). Other distinctions made within Warlpiri concern age; for example an older sister is called ‘kapirdi’ and a younger sister is known as ‘ngawurru’; whereas a younger brother is referred to as ‘kukurnu’ and ‘papirdi’ refers to an older brother (Bavin, 1991, p.325). Within the immediate family, a Napaljarri mother who has two sisters is named ‘ngati’ as too are her sisters. In the total system however, a Nangala is considered to be in relation to the mother of Napaljani, and Japaljarri will be the subsection name for Napaljarri relations, such as brother, father’s father, father’s father’s sisters and brothers, as well as brother’s son’s son. Names that pass down from the father’s line of descent alternate between generations, so the grandfather – the father’s father of a Japaljarri is a Japaljarri. Such a cyclic phenomenon is representative of the ‘cultural model of Warlpiri people’ (Bavin, 1991, p.326). Kin terms within Navajo differ between regions but this paper will discuss the terms used by those in the Pine Springs area, as provided by Freed and Freed (1970). Diagram 4: The Navajo kinship terms Like Warlpiri, Navajo kin terms are inclusive in that one term may be applied to a number of different people across and between generations. A father’s brother for example as illustrated in Diagram 4, and a father’s sister are referred to under one term which is ‘bizhi’; it differentiates them from parents (‘zhe’e’ father, and ‘ma’ mother) and mother’s siblings (‘da’i’ mother’s brother, and ‘ma yazhi’ mother’s sister). Also shown in Diagram 4 is that the children of the mother’s brother and the father’s sister are all referred to by the one term ‘zeedi’, but the father’s brother’s children, if they are male, are called ‘naai’, the same as the male children of the mother’s sister. The female children of the father’s sister are referred to as ‘adi’, which is also used to refer to the female children of the mother’s sister. In the same way, Ego’s brother and sister are also referred to as ‘naai’ and ‘adi’, and the female children of Ego and his/her siblings are referred to as ‘tsi’ while the male children are termed ‘ye’ (Freed & Freed, 1970, p.1440). Diagram 4 does not show kin terms for grandparents but Opler (1936) tells us that there are two terms used for grandparents, one for the grandparent of each sex and there are separate terms for younger and older brothers and sisters, which are not evidenced by Freed & Freed (1970) in Daigram 4. Opler (1936) claims the Navajo kinship system is a combination of the Chiricahua and Jicarilla Indian systems. Within the systems of kinship there is also a phenomenon known as avoidance language, which means that certain terms pertaining to members of the group cannot be used or in some cases those member cannot even be looked upon, let alone spoken about. This notion of avoidance language is evident in both Warlpiri and Navajo. In Navajo there is avoidance between a mother-in-law and her daughter’s husband, in fact they are not to see each other, so the avoidance is mutual. Aberle (1961) tells us that the mythological penalty for setting eyes on each other is blindness. He also claims that evidence has been found of a son-in-law leaving his home ‘hogan’ in order to allow his mother-in-law to enter without them meeting; the same situation in reverse however has not, according to Aberle (1961, p.150), been recorded. The term used for this avoidance translates as ‘the one I don’t see’ and although stringently upheld in the past is far less espoused today. Even historically there were instances when the avoidance was negated; if a man had sex or married a woman but later married her daughter, in cases of severe illness or when a mother-in-law was given a Sing ceremony by the son-in-law the avoidance law was dropped. The Sing ceremony, which was only undertaken in serious emergency could also be given to a man’s wife, after which sexual relations were then taboo, which therefore implies that the mother-in-law is sexually taboo (Aberle, 1961). Aberle (1961) also makes mention of a slight taboo between brothers and sisters, who once passed puberty are not allowed to use the dual form of a verb that refers to them doing things together, because of incestual connotations. Avoidance in Warlpiri is similar to those in Navajo. Both genetically and classificatory related brothers and sisters are expected to be quite reserved with each other once reaching puberty, and avoid using their personal names with each other. Brothers-in-law are also required to assume a formal behavior towards each other and keep a distance from each other (Fryer-Smith, 2002). As with the Navajo, mother-in-law avoidance is the strongest whereupon they are not even permitted to say each other’s name, let alone see or speak to each other. One particular and important avoidance law in Warlpiri that is not evident in Navajo, is the taboo of speaking the name of a deceased person, which to do so would indicate a lack of respect for the dead person and his/her family. A deceased person therefore, has to be referred to indirectly and even similar sounding words to the name of the deceased cannot be used. This taboo can last for up to a year for someone who dies predictably; if however a person dies in young life the taboo may last for fifteen to twenty years. Surviving members of the deceased’s family may also be called by different names, usually in reference to their relationship to the deceased, such as somebody whose sister has died, and these names may last for the rest of their life (Fryer-Smith, 2002). In conclusion it can be claimed that although the languages of the Navajo and the Warlpiri people are very different, they evidence many similarities in terms of kinship systems and the ways in which that system impacts on their daily lives and relationships with other members, both close and extended. References Aberle, David F. (1961). Navaho. In Schneider, D.M. and Gough K. (eds) Matrilineal Kinship. California: University of California Press. Bavin, Edith L. (1991). Socialisation and the Acquisition of Warlpiri Kin Terms. Papers in Pragmatics, Vol.1 (3), 319-44. Retrieved 13 March, 2011 from www.elanguage.net/journals/index.php/pragmatics/article/download/.../285 Countries and their Culture. Retrieved 15 March, 2011 from www.everyculture.com. Dousett, Laurent. (2002). Introduction to Australian Indigenous Social Organisation: transforming concepts. Aus.Anthrop: research, resources and documentation. Retrieved 19 March, 2011 from www.ausanthrop.net/research/kinship/kinship2.php. Freed, S. & Freed R. (1970). A Note on Regional Variation in Navajo Kinship Terminology. American Anthropologist. Vol. 72 (6), 1439-1444. Retrieved 24 March, 2011 from onlinelibrary.wiley.com. Frey, R. (2008). Peoples of the World. Course Syllabus ANTH220. University of Idaho. Retrieved 13 March, 2011 from http://www.webpages.uidaho.edu/~rfrey/220kin.html#descent Fryer-Smith, Stephanie. (2002). Aspects of Traditional Aboriginal Australia. Aboriginal Benchbook for West Australian Courts. The Australian Institute of judicial Administration Incorporated, pp.2.1-2.27. Retrieved 24 March, 2011 from www.aija.org.au/online/ICABenchbook/BenchbookChapter2.pdf Laughren, Mary. (1982). Warlpiri Kinship Structure. In Heath, J., Francesca Merlan, F. and Alan Rumsey, A. (eds.) Languages of Kinship in Aboriginal Australia. Oceania Linguistic Monographs No. 24, pp. 72-85. Sydney: Oceania (University of Sydney). Morgan, L.H. (1871). Ancient Society. Foreword by Elizabeth Tooker, Tucson: University of Arizona Press. O’Neil, D. (2006). Kinship: An Introduction to Descent Systems and Family organization. Tutorial, Behavioral Sciences Department, Palomar College, San Marcos, California. Retrieved 20 March, 2011 from http://anthro.palomar.edu/kinship/default.htm. Opler, Morris E. (1936). The Kinship Systems of the Southern Athabaskan –speaking tribes. American Anthropologist. Vol.38 (4), 620-633. Retrieved 20 March from onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1525/aa.1936.38.4.02a00120/pdf Singarimbun, M. (1975). Kinship, Descent, and Alliance among the Karo Batak. London, England: University of California Press. Read More