ESKIMO KINSHIP TERMINOLOGIES DAVID STEVENSON, B.Sc. THE
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
ESKIMO KINSHIP TERMINOLOGIES by DAVID STEVENSON, B.Sc. THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA A Thesis submitted in Partial Fulfilment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Arts in The Department of Anthropology and Sociology We accept this thesis as conforming to the required.standard THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA June 1964 In presenting this thesis in partial fulfilment of the requirements for an advanced degree at the University of British Columbia, I agree that the Library shall make it freely available for reference and study* I further agree that per• mission for extensive copying of this thesis for scholarly purposes may be granted by the Head of my Department or by his representatives. It is understood that, copying or publi• cation of this thesis for financial gain shall not be allowed without my written permission* Department of Anthropology and Sociology The University of British Columbia, Vancouver 8, Canada Date June 12th, 1964. ii ABSTRACT Seventeen complete and incomplete Eskimo kinship terminologies are examined and compared with a view to determining and assessing the nature and extent of the reported discrepancies. It is shown that the lack of a standardized ortho• graphy for the Eskimo language has contributed to the difficulties of comparing the distribution of terminology. Nuances of the language, especially those relating to the use of different suffixes for 'step', 'adoptive', and 'lesser' are shown to give rise to some of the reported discrepancies. The definitions of Spier and Murdock relating to the 'Eskimo Type' of kinship system and social structure are examined and found to be invalid for the areas for which data are available. It is established that a core of terminological and structural similarity exists between the geographically isolated systems. But the importance of local variables demands that correlations between the kinship system and the associated social structure must be made within the framework of the local economic and ecological factors impinging upon the domestic group. The apparently asymmetrical relationship between- ascending and descending generations is examined within the conceptual framework of the developmental cycle of domestic groups. It is suggested that the specificity of terminology is related to the economic effectivity of the category of relative under discussion. The data available are insufficient for statistical analyses but it is thought that the statistical approach will provide a more coherent picture of the structural and functional inter-relationships between the on-going in• stitutions and that local variations will be shown to have rational bases. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I wish to thank Doctor H.B. Hawthorn, Head, Department of Anthropology and Sociol• ogy and my supervisor Doctor R.W. Dunning, Associate Professor of Anthropology and my many fellow students at the University of British Columbia for their constructive criticisms and advice in the preparation and completion of this thesis. iv TABLE OF CONTENTS Page INTRODUCTION 1 - 14 The Present State of Studies in Eskimo Kinship Systems 1 - 5 Methods Used and Type of Data Available 6 - 14 DESCRIPTION OF FIVE KINSHIP CHARTS 15-46 COMPILATION AND COMPARISON OF REPORTED TERMS FOR SEVENTEEN GROUPS 47 - 66 SUMMARY OF INTERREGIONAL CONSISTENCIES IN KINSHIP TERMINOLOGY 66-68 DISCUSSION OF THE 'ESKIMO TYPE' KINSHIP SYSTEM AND SOCIAL STRUCTURE 68 - 74 BRIEF REVIEW OF RECENT STATISTICAL APPROACHES TO THE ANALYSIS OF KINSHIP TERMINOLOGY 74-77 DISCUSSION OF SOME SPECIFIC INTERGENERATIONAL DISCREPANCIES IN THE REPORTED KINSHIP TERMINOLOGIES 78 - 87 THE RELATIONSHIP OF THE DEVELOPMENTAL CYCLE CONCEPT TO ESKIMO KINSHIP SYSTEMS 87 -103 BIBLIOGRAPHY 104 V LIST OF TABLES Page TABLE 1 11 TABLE 2 48 TABLE 3 69 TABLE 4 71 TABLE 5 85 vi LIST OF FIGURES Page Figure 1. Southampton Island Kinship System 15 Figure 2. Cape Dorset-Lake Harbour Kinship System 25 Figure 3. Pond Inlet Kinship System 32 Figure 4. Chesterfield Inlet Kinship System- 38 Figure 5. Eskimo Point Kinship System 42 Figure 6. Summary of Constant Terms 67 Figure 7. Theoretical Distribution of Aunt/ Uncle Terms 79 Figure 8. Reported Distribution of Aunt/ Uncle Terms 80 Figure 9. Theoretical Intergenerational Symmetry of Uncle/Nephew Terms 83 Figure 10. Reported Intergenerational Symmetry of Uncle/Nephew Terms 84 Work done within the last fifteen years has pro• duced a number of apparently conflicting kinship ter• minologies for the various Eskimo groups. The importance of resolving the problems in the basic structure and in the patterns of variation of Eskimo kinship systems has been recognized by a number of workers. Giddings, for example, states that: ... it seems highly probable that a study of kinship systems in the far north may be used as a valuable aid in distinguishing linguistic from cultural boundaries. (1952; p.10). Dailey and Dailey cite the case for kinship studies more strongly when they say: Nor in this respect /"the study of kindreds_7 can we emphasize strongly enough the importance of supporting general studies of Eskimo kinship systems. Knowledge of this kind is particularly urgent, not only from the standpoint of theory, but also for practical purposes as well. (1961;p.38). In regard to the reported conflicting kinship terminologies the same two authors say: The clarification of these 'discrepancies' should be one of the major objectives of further Artie research in anthropology. (Ibid; p.50) The previously accepted classifications of Morgan (1871) and Spier (1927) which were utilized by Murdock 2 (1949) in the erection of a model of 'Eskimo type' kin• ship system and social structure are now highly suspect except in an extensively modified form (for example see Lantis 1946; Giddings 1952; Hughes 1958; Damas 1963). A basic error in the formerly accepted model appears to have derived from the restricted use of male Ego terms for female relatives and from a lack of sufficient data for viable generalization. As Giddings points out (1958) Murdock's 'Eskimo type1 is based upon two geographically isolated groups, one from North Central Canada and the other from East Greenland. Recent work has not yet led to an accepted reform• ulation of an Eskimo 'type* kinship system and social structure but has, rather, resulted in the compilation of masses of apparently conflicting and regionally anomalous patterns of kinship terms. This situation has prompted Giddings to conclude that: "... we may not blandly assume cultural unity between Eskimo-speaking groups.n (1952; p.9). This cautious view should not, of course, completely inhibit cross-regional comparative studies of the order carried out by Damas. The latter author feels that a study of the geographical distribution of the variant systems from a 'micro-diffusional' approach could lead to the dis• covery of significant generalities applicable to the Eskimo- 3 speaking groups (1963). He also suggests, considering the homogeneity of cultural forms (cf. Giddings above) and some aspects of social life and, in many cases, of ecology, that limited covariational studies might provide testable hypotheses (ibid, I963). One of the objects of this thesis is to discuss and compare the reported kinship terminologies and to attempt to show that at least some of the inconsistencies arise from a failure to understand the nuances of the language. A second objective is to attempt to isolate what appears to be inter-regional consistencies in terms and in the associated categories of relatives. A third, and major, objective of the thesis is to discuss the pos• sible relationships (as indicated by the terminological systems) holding between the first ascending, Ego's, and the first descending generations. This latter goal will be in the nature of a speculative exploration of Fortes' "developmental cycle" concept with its implications for the existence of varying and functionally significant cate• gories of kinsmen. Bohannan clearly outlines the pitfalls inherent in a study of kinship systems when he states that: ... kinship terms refer not merely (and often not even primarily) to the facts of biological relation• ship, but also to the cultural image of them - that is, to the social facts of role Expectations. (1963; p.67) 4 Such behavioural roles can be determined only in an empirical way and cannot be deduced from the terminology. Failure to recognize this essential fact led the earlier workers to make erroneous assumptions concerning social relationships. Even in the field of empirical validation anomalous departures from the putative system are found. Opler, for example, found that among the Apache, terms for kinsmen may be similar while the behaviour towards them differs and vice versa. (1937; p.202-5). Inconsistencies of this nature have led Murdock to caution that, although the congruity of terms and behaviour patterns is an accepted generalization, the association of the one with the other is not absolute (1949;p.107). With these warnings in mind then, no attempt will be made to deduce specific behaviour patterns from the terminologies presented. Nevertheless, it will be necessary to attempt to de- limit the functionally significant cate- L-' gories of relatives as they appear to be indicated by the terminologies. As Bohannan points out: The most important fact about a kinship system is that it is a set of role tags which make it possible for a person to know what to expect from his kinsmen and what they expect from him. (Ibid., p. 70) Since these 'role tags' are different for different rela- 5 tives it can