198 Adoption of Patrilineal Surname System by Bilateral Northern Ojibwa: Mapping the Learning of an Alien System1 Mary Black Rogers Edward S

Home , An (surname)

198 Adoption of Patrilineal Surname System by Bilateral Northern Ojibwa: Mapping the Learning of an Alien System1 Mary Black Rogers Edward S. Rogers Royal Ontario Museum

Introduction Among the alien systems of rules that a so-called "acculturating" society is usually required to adopt is that for assigning to individuals their "proper names". The matter of personal names has cultural and psychological ramifications, and it also presents an interesting cognitive learning situation that is not so simple as one might at first imagine. A naming system can in itself be quite complex, presenting to the members of a culture a number of steps (or layers of difficulty) in their gradual incorporation of it from childhood. These points are dramatically spot lighted when one looks closely at the imposed learning of a new naming system by a people already enculturated in their own sets of interlocking cultural rules. The case of the adoption of the Euro-Canadian patrilineal surname system by a group of Northern Ojibwa grew from being a "noisy" element in our data to proving itself an important study in its own right. By combining field data collected in the community of Weagamow Lake, Ontario (formerly Round Lake; see map) with information found in archival documents, we were able to reconstruct the actual historical process of surname adoption, generation by generation, for each of the 25 surnames in the present community, and then to analyze the learning and use of the system as such. It appears to be a case where the levels of complexity of the new system met with specific cultural resistance and interference, thus allowing added perspectives on the problems involved in this type of change, and highlighting the ramifications of naming through other parts of the culture. Aside from Ritzenthaler's 1945 brief communication about the acquisition of surnames by the Chippewa Indians of Wisconsin, we are not aware of other Algonquian studies that have treated this subject; it still is one "commonly neglected by the ethnologists" (Ritzenthaler 1945:175). Data Sources and Population Studied A separate paper on the methodology and sources for this study is in press (Rogers and Rogers 1978). The method consists of interdigiting fieldwork with archival searches in a rather intricate manner. It represents a case where neither informant testimony nor archival information alone would have been sufficient, but their complementary and interlocking application made possible the reconstruction of the course and structure of this naming change. From some of the older residents of Weagamow Lake we had Anglicaobtainea copy dno fMissioquit thee Registencomprehensiv at Birg ofTrou Baptisme t genealogiesLakes ; anthid sMarriage ,missio befornes whaoefd acquirethbeee n d 199

HUDSON BAY

j£Oprr -^EVERM MANITOBA

• HUDSONS BAY COMPANY POST (|90o) '-'TRADE ROUTE 7 • INDIAN RESERVE MAP OF NORTHERN ONTARIO SHOWING THE SCALE JN MILES WEAGAMOW AREA 200

mainly responsible for converting to Christianity the Weagamow elders' parents and grandparents. The relatively short time since the start of church influence in this region was a factor that allowed the crucial overlap of informant testimony with written records. The Mission Registry (ACR) begins in 1855, which corresponded to the farthest reach of memory and knowledge of the elders of the community as of 1958 when fieldwork began. These elders were consulted again after acquisition of this document, and worked with us during the final year of fieldwork, 1975, to interpret what we had found (including reading some entries made in Cree syllabics). Their memories were thereby triggered to .further items of genealogical interest, and to further recall of the names by which their predecessors had been known. Also of value was their own name-using behaviour as observed in natural contexts while we worked and lived with them. While the fur trade documents (HBCA) cover an earlier and longer period of contact than the church register, they do not indicate as significant an influence on the introduction of surnaming. Not motivated to change the names of their Indian trappers, the traders for their account-keeping entered such names or other means of identification as suited their purpose. Especially for the Weagamow trappers, who were less well known and whose territory was far from the post, they tended to continue the use of the single Indian name, sometimes for many years after the individual's baptism. The traders' records overlap in time with missionary naming, and also continue for a time after the signing of Treaty. This event did not occur until 1930 for the Weagamow population (1929 for the Indians of Big Trout Lake) , who were actually little known before the Treaty except to a handful of traders and missionaries. (There was no mission or permanent trading post located within their own territory, the Weagamow area, until well into the present century; see map.) From 1930, however, the government's need for a stable set of names became the urgent issue, and it was not satisfactorily resolved for another decade or two. The period of government documents (PAC RGIO) thus has the shallowest time depth, but exerted the strongest pressure, as use of the surname system finally became a practical necessity on both sides. Comparison of the three sources of written records--trader, missionary, and government--attests to their mutual in dependence in the matter of names. Indeed, there was dis parity even within one docume:;t and for the same individual. Figure 1 shows a case where the government took one choice of surname, while the church was recording a different generation as the surname origin. Prior to the Treaty the church had floated between the two, while the traders had continued the use of the single Indian name. Government records probably became a stabilizing influence on this type of wavering. However, note in Figure 1 that the government has Sam's full brother Philip as "Philip Sa-ka-na-ko-sa" on the same 1930 paylist (PAC RGIO Vol. 9554 ) that settled Sam and his other brother Mike as "Sawanis". Philip died without offspring in 1938, which obviated any resulting confusion or need for the kind of adjustments that were made in such cases in the first two decades after 201

Treaty. As can be seen in Figure 2, however, not all sets of siblings at the time of the 1929 and 1930 treaties were adj usted to a common surname for their descendants; the four sons of Manitons were recorded with three different surnames , which continue as such to this day (as will be seen in more detai l on Adams and Johnuph Evolution Charts) In short, because the Weagamow area was a pocket of late contact, virtually the entire period of acquisition of the surname system could be investigated with the method of combining informant testimony with written records--roughly a period from 1870 to 1950.

.. mmm Problems and Sol utions in the Acquisition of a Naming System To ana l yze the record obtained from the sources described above, and to identify and understand the particular problems encountered in this adoption of surnaming, two further kinds of information were of importance: the Indian system of naming already existing at the time of surname introduction , r::::::::: and the exact nature of the system that was being imposed upon it . (These should include, ideall y , definitive data about the usage and functions of names in each system, within 2 n:::::::: the wider cul t u re . ) A close inspection of the name-data iJIIIIIIII record , in the light of these factors , has yielded some l!!!l!lll! success in finding order in the puzzling variety of naming events that were seen to have occurred . "Solutions " to the overall problem of selecting and stabl izing a surname were varied but not disorderly: four solution-types were isolated and will be described and shown in context , then analyzed in terms of the features of surnaming and those of the Indian system of naming and name-usage. The Indian system of naming. Traditionally, there appears to have been no regular naming that connected one kinsman with another , much less a system that could be characterized as unil ineal (cf. Graham 1969:179) . 3 Proper names were unitary in form , and unique to each individual; if dupli cation occurred , it was generally fortuitous. An individual did frequently have multiple names--possibly several through his lifetime . But these were considered as alternatives or substitutes , not parts of a sequential whole. The practice of nicknaming , for example, could add a name , early or later in life, based on a unique or humorous characteristic or experience; one of these sometimes became the primary name by which an individual was recalled, and in some cases jelled as the surname . 4 A further category of "secret names" was, by definition , not further explicated. Of greatest relevance here was the bestowal of a name during infancy, by a selected elder , in a ritualized name-giving occasion that carried social and religious meaning, and created a certain formal relationship between the bestower and the recipient . 5 When the Christian baptism was introduced , it was no doubt seen in a parallel light and sought as an added source of guidance, protection or power. (Weagamow informants in fact cited the missionary ' s baptisms as one source of the "good " or Christian power in contrast with "evil" Indian powers--this was the view of the missionized generation, still exerting a certain amount of influence during our early fieldwork; see Rogers 1962:09 and Black 1971:290-293). In the manner and meaning of ""0 "" ANGLICAN CHURCH F16. 1. WRNAMES RECORDE-D IN ~WANI'S r;t:\MIL.Y

1577 S<:~muel Sowons (bp.) ) I LE-GEI\ID

1895 John Sha ~nt>c c_oo ·soy (bp eh ) bp. MPTISED bp eh. 11 CHILD IB98 " Sakannogo:>oy (bp .eh .) INFORMANT TE-STIMONY c. CONFIRMED d. DIE-D " 1900 Sil ·wan n~r.> (bp.eh ~o.m) m. MARRJfD 190:) " :Saw at~nu:> ( bp.c:h. ) H UDSON:S BAY COMPANY 1901::. " 5 d.kanllk o~ (bp.ch . MikeJ ~2

190() " Sa.c;in ~tjoo5d_ ( bp chJ L lSho.kll.nakoosh~t in n in ew 190€ 1909 Sa.kO.nlljo5d.y ( \:Jp .c: h.l

1911 " SO.kdM f30 !>0-_ (bp.ch .l ~ a.gano.aoo..st~y ainenew 1911 ,, 1915 .Sawo.nnes~ (bp.c.h Philip) 3 5~n~oos().y 19\S

19ZO " SawAne:,h ( d.l Sarr1 M•ke. Phil\p

1924- So.m -S o.:wen es ( nd 1925 " 5il.wll.m5 ( i:>p.c h .)

1921 5o.lt. cc.) 5

1945' " '' (bp. ch.l / AT r l6 2 . VARIANT :'::>!BUNG .SURNAMES TREATY 1 no! late.r adjusted MANITONS

IREAIY 1929/oo

0QHNUPH .JIMMY 0cHN ACl6Jvl A = 0 CLARA MANJTON15 1HUNDER THUNDER ADAt--15

A!B

AbE.L RICHARD A Tt-\0'4A5 ~NUPH THUNDER. ADAMS

JOHNUPl-4 THUNDeR ADAM5 ESTAELI5HED vURGIAME.. .. DIED &-FO~E.. TREATY

D. ALIVe. AT TP-EA TY

IV &. t':c:JRN AFTER- TR.E.,AIY 0 w 204 name-bestowal, then, the traditional practice made ready room for the baptismal efforts of the missionary, which supple mented rather than replaced it. There was always room for more power, as there was for yet another name. Thus, while concurrent and/or complementary use of both Anglo and Indian names caused considerable confusion to white agents,6 it did not contradict or interfere with the Indians' prior structure of naming, in which a person got along quite comfortably with an array of different names and other means of personal reference. The traditional naming can be characterized in terms of three features: unique names (for each individual), unitary names (in form), and multiple names. Types of Surname Solutions. A selection of the data can now be examined to show some of the final sorting of the names that had been found in the various records, after each name had been identified as to referent and genealogical line. Patriline EVOLUTION CHARTS were drawn up for each of Weagamow's current surnames, of which 8 are included in the Appendix. These give contextual illustration for various points that follow, among them the four TYPES OF SURNAME SOLUTION that emerged. It was found that several different routes were followed to arrive at the common destination where a family surname "jelled" into a constant form for the coming generations. JELLING refers to a point in time after which no other surname was used, the JELLING GENERATION being the first generation in each patriline where all relevant individuals were consistently referred to by a common surname. CONSISTENCY is measured taking into account all available sources--from field and documents. The variable jelling routes were found to reduce to essentially four types or classes of surname solutions. Table 1 shows the distribution by final solution-type of all current surnames. In at least two cases, the destination may not yet have been reached, since local usage still differs from written records. Orthography of surnames in Table 1 is taken from government Band-list. The starred names are those for whom we provide case histories on patriline Evolution Charts (Appendix). It will now be seen how each solution-type resulted in the final jelling for some families, while for others it held sway for a portion of the trip but gave way to a contender before the finish. SOLUTION TYPE #1: Indian name becomes the surname On initial contact with the missionaries, individuals with Indian names were frequently baptized as adults, and either their own Indian name or that of their father is found in the surname (or "parents") column in the baptism record. For some, this Indian name was retained as surname by subsequent generations to the point of jelling. (18 of the 2 5 Weagamow surnames can be classified under this type of origin, though most of them took byways toward other Apitakisiosolution"Alexanden the Apetawakeesiskr alonApetawikisik(sogn othf ec Kihiiyamaw way.Evolutio, ) adultA n)straightforwar "wa Char(ACs tRbaptize wher1:35)ed .d a imaexamplnIn n 188 190calle3e1 ashiid s s see n Table 1 ClffiRENT SURNAMES ARRANGED BY SOLUTION-TYPE

Solution Ill: Solution 112: Solution 113: Solution 114: Indian Name Indian Name Translated English Given Name English Surname

*Apetawakeesic • Halfaday *Adams none Chikane (both used)· *Bens on Kakekayash Manitons • Thunder Jeremiah (translation used Kakepeness *Johnuph by descendants else Kanekeesic where ) Kanate Kanesh *Magnis/James *Keeash (both used) Kenequanash *Williams Matawapit Ogemawanene *Patayash Patawanick

Que C]Ue ish Sakakeep Sakchekapo Saw an is Wapenisk Wasakimik

1\.) 0 V1 206 son was entered as "Moses, a son of A pee tha we ke sick" (ACR 1:95) . Through his life Moses was known as "Moses Apitakisik", his widow entering Treaty as "Mamie Ape-ta- we-keesic" in 1930. In 1925, "Moses and Mamie Apitokisik" baptized their son Job (ACR 11:19), who is the present family head, named on Indian Affairs lists as "Job Apetawakeesic", and each of his large family is listed with the same surname. However, the members of this family are often called "Halfaday" by many people in the community (which is their English translation of Apitakisik). This case can therefore be considered as still unjelled. SOLUTION TYPE #2: translated Indian name becomes the surname No actual cases of jelling of the translated names were found in our population, although its use along the way was evident. There were two semi-cases—one of which is Halfaday, just described. (Note that the government inserted "Halfway Sky" along with the Indian surname in 1930, but did not use this translation thereafter.) For the other semi- case see Adams Evolution Chart where the surname in question is "Thunder" (a translation of Manitons). Adam was one of the sons of old Manitons, from whose offspring three different surname jellings evolved (as already seen on Figure 2). The son Adam was recorded as Adam Thunder but this name did not jell for his descendants. However, two brothers of Adam became John Thunder and Jimmy Thunder, the progenitors of today's Thunders at Sachigo Lake and Bearskin Lake communities. No Thunders occur at Weagamow Lake today, since the route of Adam's descendants and those of his brother Jonap was by way of Solution Type #3. SOLUTION TYPE #3: Christian first name becomes the surname In this third type of surname solution, the Christian name by which the father had been baptized (or sometimes the mother) shows up as the surname for one or more sons and jells in the next generation. (Slight alterations occurred at treaty-signing, so that Adam became Adams and William became Williams and for some reason Benjamin became Benson.) All seven of the Anglo or non-Indian names at Weagamow have this type of derivation. One unusual case is a third brother of Adam (another son of old Manitons) whose legacy is the surname "Johnuph", seen on Johnuph Evolution Chart. He appears to have been given the name "John Harper" (in honour of the Anglican catechist at Trout Lake during the 1870's no doubt). His name was subsequently recorded as "John Harp. Thunder," "Jonaharp," "Jonahab," and finally "Johnuph." Jonap himself (this unitary name is how he is remembered) entered Treaty as "Johnuph Manitonis"; at the same time his son's widow was recorded as "Manzenette Johnuph." His son, by the way, is not remembered as Alexander Johnuph but rather by the unitary name Alexander (or Aneksenten, as monolinguals say it7), and it is denied that he shared in the name Johnuph even though his son's whole family has that surname today. The Magnis Evolution Charaunitars surnamet yshow namess, ananothe.d alsInr oadditio casof e thonfe persistencthite isfirs distinguishet enam ofe othf ed fathe usbye roaf quirjellink g 207 finish in which an apparent clerical error of the government recorders determined the official form of the name. Chief Kihcipiness' son James ("James Kechepenass" in the records, but to his contemporaries his full name was "Jemiss") left his baptismal name James as surname for his son Magnis and it has passed to Magnis's son Agrippa and to Agrippa's son Eli—according to local usage. However, the government version has the surname as Magnis, which seems to have come about through a clerical transposition of the first and last name of Magnis James at time of Treaty. So at present all the Jameses still appear with the surname "Magnis" on government rolls. Whether this will be "corrected" to James is an open question, but its jelling is still wobbly at least. SOLUTION TYPE #4: English surname inherited from a non-Indian ancestor or received in baptism There are no such jellings at Weagamow, although it can be documented for some nearby communities. But in several of Weagamow's reconstructed patriline Evolutions the data disclose English surnames in the earliest baptized generation. This was the period of an especially generous missionary who gave out both first and last names (the latter said to have been those of some of his boyhood classmates8). So "Smith," "Cochran", "Anderson", and "Midland" grace the histories of the jelled surnames Sakchekapo, Keeash, and Benson; two of these Anglo surnames had never been heard by present descendants. Figure 3 is a schematic representation of the four types of surname solution, showing typical stages through four generations; one can see that across a generation each line could differ from the others in some respect; it also indicates the differential jelling rates that occurred. It is greatly oversimplified, of course, not allowing for waverings, back-slidings, and concurrent use of more than one type by the same individual. Features of patrilineal surnaming. This outline of the four solution-types was derived from what appeared at first to be a scramble of unique improvisations. Yet the piecing together of evidence places each "improvisation" within certain patterns of sensible non-arbitrary application of one feature or another of the surname system. It is useful now to examine that system more carefully, in terms of its features and rules. For it was found that some parts of the new system were readily put into use while others were yet ignored, and some parts of the old system were not easily abandoned. What are the "parts" of the surname system? We would like to consider the following five features of the surname system, in terms of their irregular adoption: 1) dual rather than unitary names: i.e., "full name" consisting of two necessary parts, given name or names, and surname; 2) afulseparatel surnaml nameey; asan don differentle necessary partfrom , ththae tres functiont of thse N 0 00

GENEl

ll SMI111)"-{E) I:'>AAC. A)~(F) ~(t:>MC..) :(JAME.S <:t{G}-(JAME..)) I( HENRY ~N}i~) m (PETER)-{D) (E..LIJAK E) (l-IENR.y"f'') (WtlllAM JAME.5)

N (PAT D) (Jo~N PeT~) (D\VID E:.-) (MAT~E.W E..) (JO~N·F·) ( Ro'('F) (~JAME.S) (JoB JAM~:.-5) (fRED M.A50'J} NO I N05 No I NO.Z N05 NO 4 ftNAL .SOLUTioN

r16.-3. SCHE.MATIC.. REPRE58-ITATION oF fOJR T\f'E..S OF NAMt!Jq \SOLUTIONS LCGEJ-JD : CAPIIAL LEJTE.RS ...... INDIAN NAMES CAPITAL- W:.TrERS IN G'IJOTJ;S ...... TR,AN.SLATED INDIAN N AME.5 ( ),__,( J. ... - ALTERNATt\11:_ NAMe:) RoMAN NUMEK;I.LS . ···· ··-·· · .. 6E:NEAAT10N5 (AT 6t:NE.mtoN \11, ~lei-tN6S Of 11-bSE.- 51-JDWN WOUlD VERY Ll(f;..LY R.E.l'RE-SE:NI 1Aff1;Rl:.Nr 00LUTION~ ) 1\lo. I, z, 3, 4- ...... -:TYPE::;, oF NA-MtNc. ::::oUJTtoNs, M:> DE-6::RIBE.D iN IE.>G"". 209 3) a surname shared by all members of a nuclear family; 4) a surname inherited in the male line, i.e. receiving this name from one's father; 5) change of woman's surname at marriage, i.e. dropping of premarital surname as such and replacement with that of husband. Clearly, these violate two traditional naming features— unique names and unitary names. A closer look is fruitful, however. Logically, these five features should be grasped in essentially the order given. The principle of duality (features 1 and 2) must be recognized before one name can be manipulated separately from the other—vis-a-vis sharing, inheriting, and supplanting (features 3-5). Yet in our reading of the data, the adoption of the system seems to have occurred in just the reverse of this order. Feature 5 is not inconsistent with the previous naming pattern, where new names could be taken on after childhood. However, the permanent replacement of one name with another, structurally, was novel. Six of the 18 widows at the time of Treaty are given with father's rather than husband's surname, a 7th has first husband's surname rather than a second husband's and a church confirmation list gives the maiden name for yet another widow and also for the wife of the living chief. Feature 4, as it introduces inheritance of a name from a male parent, also came pretty readily. (Though mother's name was found one or two times.) However, the name that was inherited, in a number of cases, was the father's given name rather than his surname. This shows a confusion over the functions of the two names (feature 2) following from non-grasp of the duality principle of separate functioning, or it simply means that the dual name itself (feature 1) was rejected—for the father. That is, the father's baptismal name had mistakenly been understood as an alternative to his previous name or names rather than a supplement to be attached to it; thus it stood as another whole name. A name should come from one's father, yes-- but any one of his names would do equally well, at this point. It can be seen what then happens to feature 3 (sharing of surname in nuclear family). It took a bit longer before sharing a name with one's father meant that siblings also share a name with one another. As late as the treaty- signing two pairs of male siblings were recorded with different surnames, each a perfectly sensible paternally- inherited appellation (see Figure 1 and Patayash Evolution Chart). Features 1 and 2, which prescribe the two-part name with separate functions, presented the basic obstacle to adoption of the system as such. Rejection of the dual name itself was found to be typical for the first and sometimes second baptized generations. At this stage of the naming evolution, bbaptismatimetyo thithos. sMane l unitar alreadyname memberys y Englisweraccumulateds e oftreateh thesname—whethede , generationast o anothebe ruse rods r unitararnonormallet recalleiyt ynamejelle onde, d onladdeaats ya d 210 surname for their descendants. Examples can be found on Adams, Benson, Johnuph, Magnis, and Williams Evolution Charts. The Schematic Representation of the steps or stages in the adoption of surnaming presented in Figure 3 also shows baptismal name in alternative unitary use for these generations. (Figure 3 takes into account both recalled and recorded names; early instances of dual names were from document records.) Given the persistence of usage of unitary names, it follows that the function of the surname to identify family membership and patriline, as opposed to that of the given name to distinguish individuals within families and patrilines, was ignored, confused, or deemed unnecessary until the last stage of the naming evolution. To this point we have presented a reconstruction of the course of surname adoption by the Weagamow Ojibwa, not an explanation of it. We have shown what can be drawn from assembling the several data sources, and have suggested stages as revealed by a systematization of the data along lines of the salient features of the naming systems involved. Points of interference from the traditional system of naming have been noted, but wider cultural and historical context have yet to be examined for a fairer understanding of the processes at work. Interference Factors and Cultural Penetration As stated, this study was not directed explicitly toward deeper cultural explanations of the events presented above. However, our continually growing appreciation of Ojibwa traditions and manners of thought and behaviour leads to a consideration of some explanatory hypotheses and to suggestions for further systematic study of name-related behavioural phenomena and of demonstrable interference factors. We will first isolate three major principles underlying specific resistances to surname adoption, and then propose their relation to certain traditions and cognitive habits that have been found to characterize Ojibwa culture. Considering the differential and uneven application of the features that make up the patrilineal surname system, the problems that arose during adoption of the system reduce to three major trouble areas: 1) the necessarily dual and differentiated "full name", 2) the sharing of identical surname, giving continuity vertically through generations and laterally across the sibling group, and 3) the unilinear limitation on the sharing: inheritance in the male line. Aside from their conflict with the traditional naming system, let us consider these hurdles in light of more pervasive cultural resistances, and of the practical situation historically. The use of names and other personal reference behaviour is not governed by an isolated set of rules but is part of a cultural fabric. And when the rules are applied, it is each time within some particular historical and situational setting. ountihaf sunitar Thla emanifol thfirsey practicanamest dhurdle—th explanation. l Mighutilitet resistanciy,t onoincludinf t thalsee osurnamg t boe th duaethe l etraditiona functiocasnames—probable thatn lmad ,habi e yt 211 itself felt, there was no reason to exchange that traditional habit for a less economical one? A single name was no doubt adequate for most of the purposes and settings that arose, for one or two generations after baptisms began. Indeed, unitary names are deemed adequate today, in many situations where we non-Indians would find the surname helpful. Our constant "Isiah who?"—if we indulge in this request for clarification--is somehow not in accordance with the Ojibwa rules. It would be pertinent here to extend our research on usage of names in Ojibwa culture. We suspect that they are not always used for identifying purposes, and that the objective may not always be to use names in such a way as to reduce ambiguity or confusion, in fact the reverse is possible. An Ojibwa penchant for idefinite or ambiguous reference has been noted eslewhere (Black 1973:18)—or at least this is what it seems to the Euro-American outsider who early learned a penchant for explicit reference and clarification. Frequent use by Ojibwa speakers of the pronoun or the general awiya ('someone') in place of the name sometimes leaves us in a state of uneasy confusion, for which Ojibwa hearers must develop a high tolerance. The latter are surely kept busy making decisions as to what persons are being referred to, a less passive role than listeners enjoy elsewhere. In any case, there is a need for systematic study not only of situations of name-use but of avoiding name-use. The function of the surname to clarify reference may have run counter to referential etiquet and intention, at least in some situations, and created an added interference factor to the acceptance of the surname system.9 The second hurdle—was there resistance, at some level, to the fact that the surname is shared? Sharing itself violates the traditional uniqueness of each individual's name or names. Ruth Landes has remarked that the very idea of sharing a name "is not acceptable to Ojibwa mystic thought" (personal communication), referring presumably to the belief that personal names involve certain elements of individualized power. Certainly name-sharing would not seem to be congenial to the emphasis on individual autonomy that is apparent through many manifestations of the culture (Black 1977a). In this context, uniqueness of names may be seen as but one facet of each individual's uniqueness, in the Ojibwa view. Then, too, the idea of the surname's continuity through generations does not seem to have caught on very quickly, i.e., sharing of identical surnames by fathers, sons and grandsons. This feature may not have been objected to, so much as overlooked. Our recent studies have fostered a growing notion that the typical time focus in these matters is not so deep, normally, as to encompass more than two or possibly three generations at once. Perhaps it is a focus on the living, or on the contemporaneous generations of any period. In kinship reckoning and marriage arranging, for example, it appears that a lineal view up a number of ogenerationascendinremotspousf genealogicae ancestorigs sgenerationo to lusual sth structuremae npasy. barteKnow eanon ssufficient nde wit mechanisdowrelationshiphn eacagaih,m nangeneration fodtsor a tho fblindnese thprospectivreconstitutin,e whicfirss ht o emor ge 212 practical necessity seems to dictate in a small in-marrying population. Our current genealogical work hopefully will throv; more light on this. The third hurdle—the lineality issue—means an adjustment to patrilineal name-inheritance by people whose kinship system is bilateral.10 Might a naming system that treats women differently from men be expected to run into conflict with bilateral kin-reckoning habits? An examination of our data shows that the idea of receiving a name from one's father had a firm hold, reflecting an early grasp—though this idea was not coupled until later with the realization that two brothers (male siblings) will have identical surnames and their respective offspring as well. What one might expect here is a confusion over the fact that the children of two sisters will not share surnames, although they are related in the same way as are the children of brothers. Once the lineal concept did get established, it had to be forgotten again for half the population. Possible interference from the kinship organization is a rather complex issue, but should be taken into account. What other principles in the traditional sorting of relatives conflict with or contradict the "sorting" that yields a class or group of individuals sharing the same surname? Can such conflicts be shown to have had an effect on the course of surname adoption? The major alignment or division of relatives that is yielded by Northern Algonquian cross- cousin terminology and behaviour-marriage patterns is along the cross-versus-parallel line, bilaterally extended. One point where unilinear naming violates the kinship alignment is that just mentioned, where the naming treats female siblings and their subsequent lines differently from male siblings. Also, extension of sibling terms in the kinship system forms a class that includes those who share the same surname, but it includes others as well (some parallel cousins share Ego's surname, others do not). The new naming system thus results in a different alignment of individuals, for which important criteria of the kinship system are either ignored or replaced. Primarily, the kinship criterion same-sex siblings vs. different-sex siblings is replaced by a distinction based on sex per se: male vs. female. In addition, the kinship system's particular use of the brother-sister link results in certain shifts of alignments with each succeeding generation (Ego's crosses and parallels are not all the same individuals as his or her father's), while the naming system imposes stable continuity vertically through all generations and produces a permanent alignment of those sharing a surname, which looks the same from whatever Ego. (Women may transfer from one "alignment" to another, but they have a permanent starting place in a surnamed group.) Overall, our data seem to suggest that bilaterality is extendeassociate—focussethfacto ein Weagamo ressenc dsdelayin dose newwit t verticaokinshigfhn acceptancrelativeath efoculp divisiocontinuitsystes soe n m(Ego'n oonf ma eoyfvertica osr havthrougth generation)—whiletwe olateralll bee hgeneration sharinngenerations any g interferenc orof s horizontalleasurnam t. linealita Itimfe so e, y 213 beyond two adjacent generations. (One is reminded here of the "sibling solidarity" thesis introduced by Pehrson (1954: 199-202) to characterize bilateral societies.) As for the conflict represented by differing alignments of relatives, for example within Ego's generation as well as between Ego's and his/her father's, our data do not give a significant degree of evidence that confusion occurred, although it should probably be inspected more carefully with this in view. There are cases where MoBro's surname (or MoSisHu's) was recorded rather than father's. These individuals appear to have acted also as foster-fathers, however. Changing of surname from father's to that of foster or step-father was not unusual, even for adults (e.g. if mother remarried), and we suppose not disagreeable considering the predisposition toward accumulating names. But the alignment conflict appears at this time to have resulted not in confusion between contradictory alignments but rather in a resistance to treating the name-sharing as an alignment at all, in the sense of groupings or categories or anything extending beyond each individual and his or her father. This supports the same point made above. (Its relation to the much-reported Ojibwa "atomism" and autonomy of the nuclear household is another question—to which we shall not address ourselves at this time.) It would therefore appear that the two systems can co-exist, especially since the kinship system was observed to be still operative through the period of our fieldwork. Apropos of this, Landes (1937:38-44) reported for the Emo Ojibwa a unilinear gens or clan organization (there were no signs of this at Weagamow), and she discusses its possible conflict with the bilateral kinship organization. She found that at Emo the unilinear influence tended to be ignored when it came in opposition to kin rules. This appears also to be the case with the naming system at Weagamow. It would be interesting to know how the course of surname adoption would have proceeded had a unilinear kin system been in use; perhaps comparisons with such societies could be made. Summary and Conclusions This paper has essentially three parts: a reconstruction of the process and structure of surname acquisition during the period 1870-1950 by the current residents of Weagamow Lake, Ontario, and their immediate ancestors; an analysis of the features of the surname system and the evidence for their differential acceptance in this population; and some explanatory hypotheses regarding interference phenemona that may have been operative in this surname evolution, i.e. features of the traditional naming and name usage—as well as wider elements of Ojibwa culture—that can be hypothesized and/or traced to have influenced the course of the surname adoption. The reconstruction was effected by combining field data collected from the Weagamow people between 1958 and 1975 with documentarpos1translatio) tfather' archivesnys oinformatioIndiaf. father'Origin namnns e ofnambecamfro surnameem ebecamchurch surnamese ,fel surnamegovernmenl, 2int) oEnglis, fou3t) ranfather' htypesd tradins: g 214 baptismal (given) name became surname, and 4) English surname received in baptism or inherited from European father. Of the 25 surnames in the current population, Table 1 shows that 18 had the first type of origin, there were two semi-cases of the second, 7 had the third, and none the fourth. Yet in the individual "evolutions" of each, several different types of origin were often indulged in along the way, so that each evolution presents a distinctive route and different pace to its final jelling. Figure 3 is a schematic representation of the possible combinations and routes. It was found that the different paths to the jelling of surnames proceeded through similarly ordered stages, among the patrilines charted (Evolution Charts for eight of the lines comprise the Appendix), and that apparent mistakes and misapplications of surnaming principles had sensible explanations either historically or in terms of interference phenomena. In an analysis of five features of the English surname system, the most readily adopted were the adding or changing of name, e.g. by women at marriage, and the inheritance of a name from one's father. It took longer for incorporation of the idea that a surname is shared by all members of a nuclear family, and longest for the duality concept that a surname functions separately and differently from the rest of the "full name"--thus finally that the full name is necessarily dual rather than unitary. This is the reverse of the logical ordering of these features. The traditional Indian naming, with its three salient features (unitary names, multiple names and unique names), was seen to directly contradict some of the above surnaming features, thus partially explaining the reverse order of their adoption and particular problems that this caused. It was suggested that additional attention to the functions of names and to rules of name-usage and possible name-avoidance would be profitable, to better understand the resistances to surnaming that occurred; descriptions of "naming systems" should include this kind of contextual pragmatic material, i.e. rules for application of the rules, in order to be ethnographically sound. Possible interference phenomena of a type more generally enmeshed in the cultural fabric were explored in the third section which offered a few explanatory hypotheses based upon our knowledge of the Ojibwa systems of communication, kinship and marriage, religion and power, and also Ojibwa concepts of sharing and of individual autonomy. The tendency to focus on a narrow time-slice (e.g. no more than two generations at a time) may be found to be more general in this type of society and is suggestive of further controlled study, as are most of the points of this section. Cross- cultural comparisons are also invited. The surname study has implications also for culture change and acculturation. The term "adoption of" rather than "change to" was used here regarding the Indians' oWeagamocasacquisitioacculturativr esupplementing ofw replacintodayn eo f ,change thg,a e gooonwit surnamsedh aresysteportioane . emphasimsystem Inwitt waofhs , anotherthmorofone reol th idaet . mattenaminwa lattersProbabl nogr t.o systefay A mergintsimpl fem w iesg 215 still being carried on, alongside the new, including the name-giving with its significance and its reciprocal relationships, and the still-common practice of using unitary names in reference (or the more indirect, name less reference). These aspects of the traditional system do not require a separate set of Indian names, though some are still acquired, including nicknames, in addition to an English name. In our observation, the old practices can be applied equally as well to the English names. Thus the traditional accommodation of several independent names still continues; it was easily stretched to include those initial "Christian" names given in baptism, and by extension it allowed a supplementary naming system to be added to that already in use, merging with the existing system when convenient, but more typically exhibiting a complementarity, a one-at-a-time usage distribution. The overall picture presented by the Weagamow people's handling of the alien naming system strikes us as but one reflection of their general ability to deal with diversity and with novelty, revealing once again an adaptive mechanism involving multiple options and standby resources that has served them well both in natural and in forced change--in fact, a mechanism that was their recipe for survival through the centuries in their demanding Sub-arctic environment (see Rogers and Black 1976) . Thus it can be seen that the knowledge gained by tracing in detail a rather limited and relatively trivial area of culture change can be tapped for further implications of a broader and more fundamental nature. For it should by now be clear that this seemingly simple change, one of the many introduced and imposed upon the Northern Ojibwa by Western society, presented in fact an immense complexity--with the accompanying opportunity to select portions to be ignored or moulded to distinctive usage. Other imposed programs, less simple to comprehend and accept, might be re-examined in this light, for example the operation of the fur trade, missionary religious endeavours, or government attempts to introduce Western economic, educational or political concepts. And finally, we point to the implications and contribution of this study, on the one hand toward more comprehensive and integrated ethnographies, and on the other toward further research on the learning and utilizing of alien systems. 216 APPENDIX: Surname Evolution Charts The charts that make up this Appendix are ordered alphabetically by surname as follows: ADAMS Evolution Chart APETAWAKEESIC Evolution Chart BENSON Evolution Chart JOHNUPH Evolution Chart KEEASH Evolution Chart MAGNIS Evolution Chart PATAYASH Evolution Chart WILLIAMS Evolution Chart These are 8 of the 2 5 current Weagamow Lake surnames, as they appear on government Band-lists for 1972. The genealogical structure and the names in quotation marks are as given by informants. Names in block letters, in square on lefthand side for each Ego, are the form or forms found in the Anglican records, with the year of the recording; names in script letters, on righthand side for each Ego and in a shaded square, are the form or forms found in Federal Government records, with the year of the recording. Names within parentheses in the squared-out areas indicate form recorded for father's name at time of Ego's baptism or of Ego's enrollment as a child at Treaty, or form of deceased husband's name given in recording a widow; "(syl)" indicates the name was written in syllables. Birth and death dates are sometimes estimates or compromises between differing records. ADAMS ,, MAN I TONS" (1MO-iB9o) fVOLUflON CHART CAVID MUII.IITC6 1888

19.30 Clara. Adarn:; (wl ) _ ____&,tepson_l_ __ _ ' ··ToMMY ADAMS.(t91:S- )

IOMIE:.. 191" / 1930 7J,omlJ.5 (Adam~) I ///%"19:s/.%/" /// /~ 19~c, " / Ada.ms l-lc6 AV6ll.ST/N 193 7 .!. • / / O MMY ADAM \9~9 1940 Tommy MA~(A AD,AJY\ 1~9 A\J6UST1NE 194-5 y / . 194:9 ··lHotvW:> AD!>MS''09.37-

1-'"' o,J "'I-' (X)

Af'ETAWAK.f.LSIC ,. " KIHCJYAMAW "(18 "- 1870") EVOLUllOf\.1 CJ-iARI

Al£iANDER A!>fTAWtk.ISIK.. 1Bt>3 APE..a-l.AWEK.!:SICK 1901 ,o.P8"AWEKE..SIK 1900 HALfSKY 192..4

Mo5ES(APE.f-1AWEKE.SIC.K..) 1901 APETOUKE.SICI( 1923 APrroKISI K. !925 r)9~ . !vtam;t- Ap!i?J.w~!«, APITAKIS!K' .,.:JoB HALfADAY" (1924-

------JOB (AP!TOKJSIK) 1925

APIOKE.SI K. 194-5 APTAKE.SI K. 194-e I' )949 /"/ //

''RDY H,ALFA~Y "(l946'- L__ RONALD ( AF'IAkE.51K) 19-+e, /1.946 "NIMPESKOW15SIN" (IEB5 - 1e r ) BENS ON

EV OLVTlON CHAR.! ''KI~CI C\A.VID''ANDER.ScN \ "AMACIWE.PINESSI " (1555- 1907)

.DI>-V!D ANDf.R.50N I~

'&NJAMIN " (lb75-1917)

BENJAMIN (ANDE.R.SON) ANDE.RSON

'GIN ( A~N } NlE- AMW-\E:.W APE./J ESE- ////// va-IN BENvAMAN

'' Na.J-.1 .BE.N8:>N "(l9z4,-

NCJAH ( .AME.CHEWAPENE.S~) 1929 // ///// / 19~o Noah (Bet1son)

///.//: A.(Jrtppo.. ( f)(_I?J(J..rn().n) 19~3 N ~94-.9 /'' / / ./ f-' NOA!-1 .BE..N50N / (9So " 5en&:YJ / \D N N 0

"MANiT()NS" (I~SO-te,9Q) 0 0 1-lNUPI--l D<\VID MAN ITOS 188e> EVOLUTION CHART

.JoYN HARPER. H,AR.e>t=.R..

N H,Azy, IHUNDE.R.. N lE- Hf>.RP!::R.__

"ALf..'>

ALEXANDER THUNDER 1923 E.LIZAWI-1 (HARPER) 1923~ / / /,;:; / / ~930 tLt;;abe/, (!1t1J1ifon1':>) " 0CNAU.AP-P 19~ ' /! / .. /: " / . / lSBtP · r \90; / • M()nifonls / .~- Y/./ ·/ 194\ " /'

AJ)E..L 1929 / / / / / / / 19X) Abel (Johf1UPJ0) \9{0 /" /Johnwh -JUNtP \~ 1948 " / /' / / 1 94-~ / '/ .Jono.h()h. A&'-.-L ~HARP 1.9::0/ '' kAHKAKIWAC ( \820- lB ? )

K.EEASH ·• GAWEcr BANow1c "~KOu:.. c " (re40-19oo ) EVOLunON C!-+AR.T

vOHN MIDLAfJ D 1-..JAMES 11 MIDDLIE.. MIDLE.N MIDLAND,, .Sf'AGULL

"51MEON K.EEA5H'(l900 -1970) "PETER KE..E.A.SI-l"(ls;os-

51ME.ON (MIDLAND) l5D2. PE::TE.R (M I eLAND) .Ji\lvtES [MIDDLit--1] 192.0 ., vAMI:$ MIDLAND _,,_ MiDLAN KIASI<.. ( ~yl. ) MIDLAND KE..YASK MIDLAND 192.9 K.E..YASK --MIDLAND- 193o~ 6efl~i:t K~~.sk 1 / l /;~~ 15<3:_ / .. /)l/e-eA:5},h /ISI4o.], / / .. :: /"0' Ll '/~~ ---~ I t~19-1:9 /01/1/IOrl "

"1-JENRY KE.f.k:M'V92S- 1940) 1\..) 1\..) 1-{8-JR..Y(JAME:..S MIDLAN ////// 1-' {~/le¥1r ~ KE-YASK 1945"" / / /7 I\.) I\.) I\.)

MAGNIS "K.IHC IPtNE-53" (I~ -19os-)

e.voumoN QlARr KEU:I-1E.PEENAS I Q:)l

JA.MEs KE..CHE..PE:.NA~ .JA,MiE... // Jarnace... kitcn

"MAGN(S -J6.ME.S "o• .. MAKINESS"(t9o4--

MA6NA5 .JAMES [ KiTGl'I'PENA5]

~GGIE. .JAME:-5 1929

AGRIFPA(fv\A6NA5~[Kf"e!-ti!>ENA5l)t9....,..J/ OO"A'CASH "T'J>-TAYAS " (183S-19oo)

EVdJJTioN (}IA!(_T [)A.VID ~AA'S 1683

0d.of'.10N 5<\HCAPEECOO S.AHWE.N E. NEW BATAYAS &,TAYAAS

:Ju06.5

D<\S 0AKARKOSEWININI (.:~y l.)t65XJI AEEl. eATAYAS tB9~ // fmAYAS'S " 'P.AiAYASS 1910 / ~

~ e:A11ASH "5Ci..oMO\l

!5&:) ADei Sa/

~ EATAYAs \9lS" N N w N N *" WILL lAMS E:voLUTION CHART "IETAPAKI51KWEK.APO 11 (1840- 10"")

7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 ' tA--rE..8'\KE5UGIJAWI

WILUAM TArEPEk£SEWJ.~,k,AtbW 1905 1//////////// ,, =r=~~8~= \~~~~~(.(~((, :.:v ~

0oB WIWAM-5 '(lst:JZ- 194 7) ~ v.IILLJ,t>lvtS"(I9.X>-1.94C'.l ) JoB (TATE:.PE.KE...SEE.0JAKARJW) 19:JS Wl WAM ( .syl. J 192S WILLIAMS 1929 w~930 ..Jo5epll "fftlfia.ms PIGE-W 19~!> r /1/ ·· // · / 19!J+ V / · // 1940 " o~ Job ' 1.9451 / " " 19f.4- / ~I~ / / 1/ , l947 ':5DLOMCN WtWAMs''(lm- 225

NOTES 1 Many individuals and several organizations have been most helpful, through the years of our research. The Royal Ontario Museum, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, Agricultural Rehabilitation Development Administration, Department of Indian and Northern Affairs, Anglican Church Diocese of Keewatin, Public Archives of Canada, Grand Council Treaty #9, Hudson's Bay Company Archives, and U.S. National Science Foundation all supplied financial asssistance and/or other forms of support. Of course, without the gracious help of the people of Weagamow Lake this study could not have been done; our gratitude goes to each and all, too numerous to mention individually. A few individuals else where stand out as having contributed in essential ways: Miss Margaret Etter of the Keewatin Diocese in Kenora, Mr. Ted Hall in Kenora, Mrs. Shirlee Anne Smith in Winnipeg, and Messrs. John McGilp and John Leslie in Ottawa assisted greatly in obtaining archival materials. Mr. "Cam" Currie throughout the entire period of investigation has been extremely helpful. Thanks are also due Drs. Charles Bishop, J.G.E. Smith and Ruth Landes for their constructive reading of the manuscript. And we wish to acknowledge and give credit to Mr. Michael Peters for his fine preparation of the map and figures. 2 Data on name usage and function in northern Ontario culture should be more thoroughly explored and utilized than is evident in this paper. A systematic study was not undertaken for this purpose: the material retrieved from our data to date indicates the importance of this type of information, however, as seen in the later section on interference factors. 3 In Graham's "Observations on Hudson's Bay, 1767-1791", one finds on page 179 a few statements about Indian naming: They have all a name given them when young; that is a month or two after their birth. On these occasions a feast is made if the father has been successful in the chase, but otherwise it is not much regarded. There is no ceremony on conferring the name, which is given by some aged person, generally a man; but perhaps as the child grows up he will have another or two names. The signification of them are various and taken from animals, vegetables, fossils, or remarkable actions or events. The editor's footnote to these observations of Graham adds: "Cree names are not ancestral, but either are invented or selected at random by the sponsors" citing from Curtis, North American Indian, XVIII:76 (see Graham 1969). Another source from our archival reading was the government agent at the Port Arthur Agency who described his dilemma over Indian names, in his annuity payment report for the year 1883, as follows: The sons when they marry always take another name (from the father), and on the Nipigon list, I have 226 mentioned some of the son's names under their fathers as son 1 son 2 son 3, 4, 5 with all different names, and same on grandfathers, and in some cases on the old list their parents dead and gone and the name also. (PAC RGIO Vol. 6896) These support our statement that the Indians had no regular naming that connected one kinsman with another. However, after perusal of many H.B.C. account books that named the Indian trappers, we found that certain connections were on occasion reflected in names, for example when a son or younger brother was called by the dimunitive of his father's or brother's name, or in English by "Old X" and "Young X," or a combination of the two languages. (Examples: Atihk- Atihkons were father and son, Old Head-Young Head were older and younger brother, Sandy-Sandyshish were older and younger brothers. HBCA: Osnaburgh House accounts for the first two, Trout Lake accounts for the third.) The significance, if any, of certain other frequently seen affixes (including inini "man," ihkwe "woman" and others we cannot analyze) has not been resolved. Examination of these for possible semantic or systematic usage might prove of interest. The fact that these examples connect no more than two generations, ,,, to our knowledge, falls within the focus-on-concurrent- generations tendency noted later in this paper. Not having sought information about Indian naming as such, our knowledge about it has come largely through exposure to a great many names recorded in the 200 years that our research covers to date, or through noting and observing Indian reactions to and usages of the surname system, both during the period when it was being adopted and also in the present time. "* A story about the origin of his surname was told by Simeon Keeash, aged about 69 in 1970: I told the Indian Affairs why I changed my last name. (My father and I) were going to the store (at X) to get some goods. It was the first time we had gone there. And there was a white man there (the trader). He told us to eat with him. That's what he used to do, he used to give food to the people. And there was another man (an Indian) there. And the trader asked him, "What is the name of these people?" And the people had been teasing my father, because he had a new rabbitskin jacket. They had said to him, "You look like a kiyask ('seagull')". And the Indian told the trader, "They are called Kiyask". We didn't talk to white people long ago, we were scared of them. He was just teasing us, but he called us Kiyask all the time (after that)... And that's why we changed our last name. We were scared of white people long ago. That's it. (English translation by Greta Kakekayash) Thisjellin storyg as aillustrates surname. Ithet als acquisitiono shows th eof rol a enickname of a trade andr iitsn 227 the evolution of this name. The origin of the competing previous surname in his family, Midland, was not known to Simeon. But we found it among the double names bestowed by Bishop Horden in 1880, again with Simeon's father as the recipient. See discussion of Solution Type #4, and Keeash Evolution Chart. The single instance of use of the English translation of Kiyask, "Seagull" in 1906, was found in a published letter by Bishop Lofthouse describing his trip from Cat Lake to Big Trout Lake through the Weagamow Area: On June 13 we started for the North in two small birchbark canoes. James Seagull, a Crane Indian, was our guide. He is a splendid fellow, and acted as catechist at Trout Lake all last summer, when Mr. Dick was at York Factory. (Lofthouse 1907:14) It is not known whether the Bishop supplied his own trans lation or was given it locally; Seagull has never been used by family members as far as is known. (NOTE: "Crane Indians" as a group identity name for the Weagamow people is being researched currently; see Rogers and Rogers 1979.) 5 A certain amount of information about name-bestowal was provided by informants. It was said to be very important, in the old days, that a small feast be given in the home, at which a chosen elder gave a name to the infant. Thereafter the child and the name-giver termed each other ningimens and had a relationship involving gifts and spiritual guidance. This is still being done today, in many families, whether the name is Indian or English, and independently of a church baptism. At Weagamow, name-giving was not explicitly connected with powers received in dreams, as had been documented for the Southwestern Ojibwa at Emo (Landes 1937: 117-18) and in nearby Ponemah, Minnesota (Black, fieldnotes 1965) . 6 Agent Swartman's report for 1945, during a period when the government was endeavoring to correct and complete the Indian census in this area, contained the following: June 7....Not very rapid progress made here.... due mainly to the fact that these Indians have two names, one Indian and the other English, and they do not recognize the English names. They were somewhat confused with names, both Christian and surname, and in many cases it was difficult to reconcile their present names with the other ones they gave five years ago. (PAC: RG 10, Vol. 6902, File 494/28-3, Vol. 3.) and a 1928 letter about an individual who seemed to be named "William Carter" or "Cater": His Indian name is Sa-Sa-kwon, or Sas-eegsone.... It certainly was impossible to connect his Indian name with William Cater. These fellows often 228

forget their Indian names and take on different names, which certainly makes it very difficult to locate. (Letter 11/15/28 to Awry from Burk, PAC: RG 10, Vol. 6889, file 486/28-3, Vol. 8) 7 Another kind of interference that probably hindered progress toward mutual understanding of the name situation between the Indians and their agents of change was phono logical interference in the pronunciation of their English names by these speakers of what is now identified as the Severn dialect of Ojibwa (Todd 1970; J.H. Rogers 1963). Since virtually the entire community was monolingual at start of fieldwork, and at its end in 1975 only youngsters under twenty had had enough English schooling to act as interpreters, we experienced firsthand observation of the results. (See Rogers and Rogers 1978 for a description of the sound alterations and their impact on our interpretation of the field and document data; written records reflected it as well.) Confusion may have occurred over the fact especially that some of the sound substitutions result in a merging of two different English names, e.g. Charlotte = Janet, Clara = Caroline, Katherine = Kathleen, Frederick = Patrick, Ellen = Helen, Laura = Nora, Thomas = Amos, and Charlie = Johnny (thus Charles = John = George also). More important for the surname study are the cases where this systematic phonological alteration influenced the surname's final form, as is the case with Johnuph, also Kanate. The remaining Anglo surnames in our population are still altered from their English pro nunciation by monolingual speakers. ! Per Jim Morrison, personal communication. The Bishop in question was the Rt. Revd. Dr. Horden, first Bishop of Moosonee, who visited Big Trout Lake in June 1880. (ACR 1: 18-33 has the 8 5 baptisms he performed: no record of marriages was found, for this visit.) 9 It has seemed to us, from time to time, that Ojibwa communicative techniques and requirements differ notably from those of non-Indian Western society, whatever language or medium is being used. This includes, for example, a particular use of silence. It probably also includes a particular use of names. In the matter of referential clarity, a need for immediate and direct disambiguation is not very evident. In fact a reluctance to classify a referent, in some situations, has been noted (Black 1977b). We have pointed out earlier that the function of the surname to sort out individuals and unequivocally place them as members of one patriline was not deemed of great importance. Perhaps it was deemed impolite or even improper. In any case, there seems to persist a preference for use of but one name at a time. This was found also in other types of classifying behavior, for example taxonomic (Black 1967, 1977a, b). When questioned concerning generic inclusion classes, Ojibwa informants sometimes responded that since a term had already been supplied (e.g. bee) a second was not needed (e.g. insect)time—eve. n Thiwhers enotio then additioof then necessitof a secony odf buservet onse tonam aded at a 229 information for identifying and classifying the referent—is perhaps parallel to the case of surname necessity. 10 For description of Weagamow Lake's bilateral cross-cousin terminology and kin reckoning, see Rogers 1962:B10-B34. In our discussion of possible interference from the bilaterally reckoned kin relationships, it might be added that if only bilaterality versus unilinear naming were at stake, our own North American kinship system is bilateral and yet we utilize patrilineal naming; thus in both our case and the Ojibwa the mother's line is considered to be equally "close" though not sharing a name. Our case differs from the Ojibwa, however, in that we do not have to unlearn the cross/parallel distinction (same-sex vs. different-sex) before applying some features of the naming.

REFERENCES ACR (Anglican Church Records) n.d. Register of Baptisms and Marriages, Trout Lake Mission (1855-1953, 2 vols.). Kenora, Ontario: Diocese of Keewatin. BLACK, Mary B. 1967 An ethnoscience investigation of Ojibwa ontology and world view. Doctoral Dissertation, Stanford University. 1971 The Round Lake Ojibwa 1968-70. In The Round Lake Ojibwa: the people, the land, the resources, 1968-1970:154-378. Toronto: Ontario Department of Lands and Forests. 1973 Ojibwa questioning etiquette and use of ambiguity. Studies in Linguistics 23:13-29. 1977a Ojibwa Power Belief System. In The anthropology of power 141-151. R.D. Fogelson and R.N. Adams, (eds.). New York: Academic Press. 1977b Ojibwa taxonomy and percept ambiguity. Ethos 5:90-118. GRAHAM, Andrew 1969 (See under Williams) HBCA (Hudson's Bay Company Archives) n.d. Documents from HBC Archives, Public Archives of Manitoba, Winnipeg, and Public Archives of Canada, Ottawa. Trout Lake Post: journals and account books; Cat Lake Post: journals; Osnaburgh House Post: journals and account books. LANDES, Ruth 1937 Ojibwa sociology. Columbia University Contributions to Anthropology, Vol. 29. New York. 230 LOFTHOUSE, J. 1907 Letter from Bishop Lofthouse. The Moosonee and Keewatin Mailbag 5(1):13-14. PAC (Public Archives of Canada) n.d. Documents in Record Group 10, Department of Indian Affairs. (Source identified in text.) Ottawa. PEHRSON, Robert N. 1954 Bilateral kin groupings as a structural type. Journal of East Asiatic Studies 3:199-202. RITZENTHALER, Robert 194 5 The acquisition of surnames by the Chippewa Indians. American Anthropologist 47:175-177. ROGERS, Edward S. 1962 The Round Lake Ojibwa. Occasional Paper No. 5, Art and Archaeology Division, Royal Ontario Museum, University of Toronto. Toronto: Ontario Department of Lands and Forests. ROGERS, Edward S. and Mary B. Black 1976 Subsistence strategy in the fish and hare period, Northern Ontario: The Weagamow Ojibwa, 1880-1920. Journal of Anthropological Research 32:1-43. ROGERS, Edward S. and Mary Black Rogers 1968 Method for reconstructing patterns of change: surname adoption by the Weagamow Ojibwa, 1870- 1950. Ethnohistory 25. 1979 The puzzle of the Crane Indians: A name-game through 200 years in Northern Ontario. Rotunda 12:11-19. Toronto: Royal Ontario Museum. ROGERS, J.H. 1963 Survey of Round Lake Ojibwa phonology and morphology. Bulletin No. 194:92-154. Ottawa: National Museum of Canada. TODD, E.M. 1970 A grammar of the Ojibwa Language: The Severn dialect. Doctoral Dissertation, University of North Carolina. WILLIAMS, G. (ed.) 1969 Andrew Graham's observations on Hudson's Bay, 1767-91. London: The Hudson's Bay Record Society Ltd.