University of Pittsburgh- Of the Commonwealth System of Higher Education

Bará Zero Generation Terminology and Marriage

Author(s): Jean E. Jackson
Source: Ethnology, Vol. 16, No. 1 (Jan., 1977), pp. 83-104
Published by: University of Pittsburgh- Of the Commonwealth System of Higher Education
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3773105 .
Accessed: 21/06/2014 07:16

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

University of Pittsburgh- Of the Commonwealth System of Higher Education is collaborating with JSTOR to
digitize, preserve and extend access to Ethnology.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 62.122.76.60 on Sat, 21 Jun 2014 07:16:34 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 BaraiZero Generation Terminology and
Marriage
Jean E. Jackson
Massachusetts Institute of Technology

This paper deals with the meaning and structure of Bara zero generation
terminology as it relates to Vaupes social structureand marriage in the central
Northwest Amazon.' The terminologyis examined in terms of three approaches
to kinship semantics. The first-a genealogical approach-is concerned with
Bara kin terms as designators of classes of kin types. The second approach,
which is associated with alliance theory, stresses the dichotomy, found in
systems which are basically Dravidian in structure, between colineals ("kins-
men" or "consanguineals") and affinals. The third-the sociogeographical
approach-is associated with Romney and Epling's (I958) analysis of the
Kariera kinship system and is concerned with a primary dichotomy between
"own group" and "other group." The reader is referred to Buchler and Selby
(I968: 136) for a discussion of these approaches with respect to Dravidian
systems. These analytic approaches are a first attempt at specifying three
postulated semantic domains in the Bara language. Although the approaches
and the domains they representare analyticallycontrastedwith one another in
this paper, I do not feel that one of them must eventuallybe chosen as absolutely
correct. A specific problem in Bara terminology-the division of zero gener-
ation classes of kinsmen into a trichotomy rather than a dichotomy-is exam-
ined from the perspectiveof each approach. All three approachescontribute to
understanding the meaning of Bara terminology and suggest directions for
further investigation.
This paper does not present a complete and rigorous formal account of Bara
terminology, or even of Bara zero generation terms (i.e., an account which
describes the distribution of kin terms over all kin types). It is concernedwith
both the "structureof the systemof kin classification"(Schefflerand Lounsbury
I97I: 2), and with Bara terminology seen as "an alliance system of social
classification"(Needham I966: 3I). That is to say, "kin" terms are considered
in a context broaderthan their kin-designatingfunction, since the terms are seen
as participatingin more than one semantic domain. However, this paper does
not attempt to present a complete account of the meaning of zero generation
Bara terms for any semantic domain.
This paper's main purpose is to demonstrate how the three-fold division of
kin terms in ego's generation and Vaupes marriage patterns are related; the
ethnographic and theoretical issues discussed are limited to this specific task.2
However, the general view expressed here is that although sociological and

83

This content downloaded from 62.122.76.60 on Sat, 21 Jun 2014 07:16:34 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 84 ETHNOLOGY

semanticdata and interpretationsshould be kept separate(Shapiro1971: 64-66),

sociological factors should be taken into considerationat some stage of analysis
even when carryingout the strictest formal (structural)account. Such data aid
in two ways. First, in choosing one of several possible analyses, the one which
best mirrors the social situation will be indicated. This is analogous to con-
clusions regarding "psychological validity" (see Hymes I96I: II6-II9;
D'Andrade I970: II7-I20). Second, relevantnonlinguisticfactorshelp in discov-
ering and analyzingthe varioussemanticdomainswhich share some or all of the
particularterms being analyzed.
ETHNOGRAPHIC BACKGROUND
The Bara are one of more than twenty patrilineal, language-affiliated,
exogamous groups (henceforth referredto as "language groups")3found in the
centralNorthwest Amazon.4This region, half in Colombia and half in Brazil, is
characterized by multilingualism, language group exogamy, and the use of
Tukano as a lingua franca. The Vaupes refers to the Colombian sector of this
region, where most of the data were gathered. The centralNorthwest Amazon
is also known linguistically as the area of the Eastern Tukanoan language
family, and the Indians participatingin languagegroup exogamy are referredto
as Tukanoans in this paper. However, some of the language groups in the
marriagesystem speak Arawak, and possibly even Carib (Figure i).
The Vaupes lies approximatelybetween the equator and i? N. Lat., and
between the 690 and 7I? W. Long. The entire Comisaria del Vaupes has a
territoryof 90,625 square kilometers and the most recent census gives a figure

Figure 1: The Eastern Colombian Vaupes

COLOMBIA BRAZIL

^/^^Tn ~ ~ ~ f~ P~wJt^I VzEr<>

"s

BRAZIL

50 km.

This content downloaded from 62.122.76.60 on Sat, 21 Jun 2014 07:16:34 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 BARA ZERO GENERATION TERMINOLOGY 85

of approximatelyI4,000 for the total population, including non-Indians.5Popu-

lation density is roughly .2 inhabitants per km2 (Atlas de Colombia: xiii). Its
most importantgeographical featuresare a terrainconsistingof undifferentiated
tropical rainforestand rivers known for their strong flow and numerous rapids.
Tukanoans traditionallylive in multi-family longhouses, one per settlement, on
or near rivers. Longhouses, as well as the more recent settlement pattern of
nucleatedvillages of one to four small houses, are separatedfrom each other by
two to ten hours'canoe travel. At presentfour to eight nuclearfamilies inhabit a
longhouse. The men of a settlementhunt, fish, and clear swidden fields in which
the women grow bitter manioc and other crops.6
Vaupes social structureis segmentaryand follows a rule of patrilinealdescent
(Figure 2). Its units, in ascendingorder of inclusion, are the local descent group,
the sib, the language group, and a possible more inclusive exogamic unit, here
called the phratry. We can characterizelanguage groups as named patrilineal
descent units identified with a specificlanguage (their father-language;Sorensen
i967), the members of which (I) observe a rule of exogamy, (2) termi-
nologically distinguish at this level agnates from other kinsmen, and (3) identify
with comembers as "brother people," using a distinct name, language, and
certain other differencesas boundary-definingmarkers.These other differences
consist of separate semi-mythical founding ancestors, the right to ancestral
power through the use of certain linguistic propertysuch as sacred chants, and
the right to manufacture certain ceremonial objects. Membership in these
groups is permanentand public; the one fact that will be known about an Indian
before anything else is his or her language group membership.

Figure 2: Vaupes Social Structure

I 1 2 3

II Bara Tukano Yurutf etc. Tuyuka etc. etc.

IIl wai maha wainakoroa etc. (approximately etc.

30 sibs)

IV A (bara B C etc. M N 0 P Y Z etc.

y6ara

I. Phratry: An unnamed unit composed of various language groups. Members

of a phratry do not intermarry and state that a sibling relationship
exists between co-members.

II. Language Group: What is commonly referred to as "tribe." Membership is determined

by a rule of patrilineal descent, and members share a father-language.

III. Sib: Named groups occupying one or more longhouses along a stretch of river.
Sibs are ranked, and membership is determined by patrilineal descent.

IV. Local Descent Group: Co-agnates who are one another's closest agnatic kin who share the same
settlement (usually a longhouse). Can be coterminous with the sib.

Explanation of capital letters in Level IV:

These represent current locations of local descent groups who are known by their settlement name.
The sib name is permanent, but the settlement name changes when the local descent group moves
its longhouse site. For example, "A" referred to pumanaka buro in 1970.

This content downloaded from 62.122.76.60 on Sat, 21 Jun 2014 07:16:34 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 86 ETHNOLOGY

Figure 3: Language Group Distribution of Settlements of a Section of

the Vaupes

TK vlh<A CAA0
CYR TK CA. t> Vl?
'5 / S .>DS 0

CRBTK TCK TK TK RTY

CANO
FT _R K 9R y PAPUR F.
6BLHUVTA TKT-
TT/, TKT. B RT

-^' 5R T-^
^ RR
TKR TY TK
TT
RCCY
f R TK
T F TNuTiT

P
BR r TQ R,. T ' 7A
TK

LANGUAGE GROUPS: BR (Bara), TY (Tuyuka), TK (Tukano), DS (Desana), TT (Tatuyo), SR

(Siriano),YR (Yuruti),CR (Carapana),PR (Piratapuya).
Eachpair of lettersrepresentsa settlement(a longhouseor smallvillage).

It should be stressed that Vaupes language groups do not occupy discrete

territories,although it can be seen from Figure 3 that they are located in easily
discernible sections of the region. Nor are language groups corporategroups in
any sense. The vast majorityof interactionsituations occurs between Indians of
more than one language group. Furthermore,all Tukanoans, regardlessof their
language group membership,share a remarkably homogeneous culture.
MARRIAGE
Certain structuralprinciples operate in Vaupes marriageswhich any Tuka-
noan can verbalize. Vaupes Indians have a prescriptivemarriage system; i.e.,
one where the category of marriageablepeople for any given ego is coveredby a
single kinship term. Marriage rules also incorporatea rule of direct, or sister
exchange, the ideal case being one in which a man obtains a wife by exchanging
his real sister for another man's real sister. Although this ideal is seldom totally
realized in practice, many marriages are piiani'ya ("two-couple") or exchange
marriages. All informants affirmed that exchange marriages were the best
arrangementfor all concerned.This principleof sister exchange, combined with
the basically Dravidian type of kinship terminology, means that the categoryof
potential marriage partnersincludes ego's bilateral cross-cousins.
When asked, Tukanoans state a preference for marriage to a genealogically

This content downloaded from 62.122.76.60 on Sat, 21 Jun 2014 07:16:34 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 BARA ZERO GENERATIONTERMINOLOGY 87

close kinsman. Thus, marriageis prescriptivein that ego must marry a kinsman
(henceforth unmarked with reference to sex) in his own generation who is
neither a sibling nor a parallel-cousin (in Bara and presumablyother Vaupes
languages, everyone who is not a Makui or white is a kinsman), and is
preferential in that a Tukanoan ideally marries a close kinsman within this
category. Furthermore,speaking from a male ego perspective, Indians state a
preference for a FZD as opposed to a MBD. The Bara terms and problems
which arise in analyzingtheir meaning are the subjectof the following sections.
Two more principles are the previously mentioned one of language group
exogamy and residential exogamy. The latter is the result of the patrilocal rule
of residenceand language group exogamy, but is a cognitive principle in its own
right.
Finally, a principle of marriage alliance operates, which means that two
affinally related kin groups consider it advantageous to continue to exchange
women over time. This differs from the more limited direct exchange strategy,
which is concernedwith insuringthe replacementof local descent group women
lost through marriage. As suggested by Lounsbury (I962: I309), it is helpful to
postulate at least two distinct types of alliance strategies. One is that of
continuing or reaffirming an alliance which has already been established and
which continues to be advantageous to both sides, as when two longhouses
regularly exchange women. Some of the advantages may be: geographical
proximity, close kinship ties, faciliation of the ceremonial and economic ex-
changes which generally characterizeneighboring longhouses, and the contin-
uing assuranceof the welfare of the women who have already marriedinto that
longhouse. The second type of marital strategy is that of establishing new
alliances which may be economically,politically, or otherwise advantageous.In
the Vaupes, a distant longhouse may provide assuredhospitality on a frequently
travelled river or contain friends met during a sojourn at a rubber camp. It is
also probably beneficial in general to have one's close affines geographically
dispersed, in order to draw on benefits available from their other affines and
neighbors. Furthermore,while raiding and feuding have ceased, in the recent
past these were important considerations in marriage-making, and distant
marriagesmade today may be continuationsof alliancesoriginally made because
of military considerations.Given the possibility of open feuding with a neigh-
boring affinal longhouse, it was best not to have all of one's potential allies
located in that one longhouse (for further discussion of marriage, see Jackson
I973; I974).
ZERO GENERATIONTERMINOLOGY
Structural accounts of kinship terminologies which are either Iroquois-
Dakota or Dravidian in type7 must reckon with a contrastwhich permeatesthe
system, and has been variously described as affinal vs. consanguineal, cross vs.
parallel, or lineal vs. collateral. Lounsbury(I956: i69), for instance, makes such
a contrast, and states that many systems make further distinctions within the
consanguineal/affinal split, such as uterine vs. nonuterine, or parallel vs. non-
parallel. Bara terminology, however, involves a basic trichotomy at the zero
generation level, rather than a dichotomy which is further subdivided. Al-
though mention of a "third group" occursin discussionsof Dravidian systems,8

This content downloaded from 62.122.76.60 on Sat, 21 Jun 2014 07:16:34 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 88 ETHNOLOGY

none of the terminologicalsystemsexamined thus far explicitly incorporatesthe

presence of a third group into its terminology the way Bara does.
In Bara, neither the cross nor the parallel-cousinterms are as simple as those
of the basic Dravidian type. As expected,Bara parallel-cousinsare distinguished
from cross-cousins,but in addition, patrilateralcross-cousinsare distinguished
from matrilateralcross-cousins(when the latter are not bilateral cross-cousins).
Also, patrilateral parallel-cousins are equated with siblings, but matrilateral
parallel-cousinsare not, even though marriageto both types is prohibited. Bara
kin terms, showing the focal kin types for ego's generation, are presentedin the
following pages (Table i).
Cross-Cousins
With regard to the distinctions made among cross-cousins, ego calls his
patrilateral female cross-cousin mehko-mahko. She is called this when her
mother is a Bara woman, whom ego calls mehko. In addition to having a Bara
mother, she may also be the daughter of a man who is a member of ego's
mother's language group, ego's mehk') i.e., a real or classificatorybrother of
ego's mother. Ego's mehko-mahko, therefore, can be a bilateral (double) or
only a patrilateralcross-cousin.The term is applied if ego is related patrilineally
to alter's mother. (Figures 4, 5, and 6)
If ego's cross-cousinis only a matrilateralcross-cousin,i.e., her mother is not

TABLE I
List of Relevant Terms

Morphemes
-o* female referent (f)
-U male referent (m)
mahk- offspring (a-a)
big- same sex sibling of parent (a+aloal)
mehk- opposite sex sibling of parent (a+aloa2)
pahk- parent (a+a)
Terms
pahkii F (a+m)
pahk6 M (a+f)
bUgu FB (MZH) (a+ mom, a+ fof= m)
biigo MZ (FBW) (a+fof, a+mom =f)
mehku MB (FZH, WF, HF) (a+fom, a+mof=m, a=a+m)
mehko FZ (MBW, WM, HM) (a+mof, a+fom=f, a=a+f)
mahku S (BS) (a -m, aom -m)
mahko D (BD) (a-f, aom-f)
bau B (FBS) (aom, a+mom-m) (sibling terms have been
bay6 Z (FBD) (aof, a+mom-f) simplified)
mehko-mahkud~ FZS (a+mof-m)
mehk6-mahko FZD (a+mof- f)
mehku-mahkui MBS (a +fom- m)
mehkui-mahk6 MBD (a+fom-f)
pahk6-mahku MZS (a+fof-m)
pahk6-mahk6 MZD (a+fof-f)
*-o and -u are sometimes nasalized, as in mehk4 and mehk6. For reasonsof diacritic simplicity,
none of the terms which have nasalized endings (e.g., mehkq-mahku) will show nasalization.
6 An 'X-Y' is the Y of an X (relative
product).

This content downloaded from 62.122.76.60 on Sat, 21 Jun 2014 07:16:34 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 BARA ZERO GENERATION TERMINOLOGY 89

Figure 4: Bara Terminology

LINEAL COLLATERAL

"Bara" "affines" "distant"

"agnates" "mother's agnates" "our mothers
were sisters"

through patriline I through matriline

no internal f 1 internal f 2 internal fs

WihkU a+a+m
+2
[ihk6 a+a+f

bUU pahkU mehkU

+1 a+mom a+m a+fom
(a+fof=m) (a+mof=m) (a=a+m)

mehko pahko bUgo

a+mof a+f a+fof
(a+fom=f) (a+mom=f)
(a=a+f)

bat mehko-mahkll mehkU-mahkU pahko-mahkU

aom a+mof-m a+fom-m a+fof-m
a+mom-m
0
bayo mehko-mahko mehkU-mahko pahk6-mahko
aof a+mof-f a+fom-f a+fof-f
a+mom-f

mahkU bayo-mahkU
a-m aof-m
a-mom
-1
mahko" bayo-mahko'
a-f aof-f
a-mof

parami a-a-m
-2
parameo a-a-f

Bara, then she cannot be called mehko-mahko but rather is called mehk"-
mahko. This traces kinship through ego's mother's brother, and usage of this
term highlights the fact that alter's mother is not Bara-not a FZ.9
Bara informantsstated that marriageto a mehko-mahko is preferredto one
with a mehkui-mahko.Ideally, the terms mehku-mahkui/-6 would not exist,
since all marriagesshould be to bilateralcross-cousins.10Figure 7 is a schematic
representationof Bara explanationsof their preferencefor "FZD" marriage. It
is concernedwith the idea of direct exchange over a generation. If ego marriesa
mehko-mahko, then his descentgroup is "getting back a woman for the one we

This content downloaded from 62.122.76.60 on Sat, 21 Jun 2014 07:16:34 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 90 ETHNOLOGY

Figure 5: Cross and Parallel Cousins

bUgu b_Ug_ mehkU mehko' pah k pahko mehkU (mehk6) bUgU bUgo

baii bayo mehko- mehko- bal EGO bay mehk- mehkll-

meh- pahko o-
mahkt
mahkU mahk6 ia mah mahkko

Terms stand,for categories of kinsmen, who are classified at the language group level
(e.g. "mehkl" stands for all +1 generation male members of Ego's mother's language group)

Sibling links r I represent real and classificatory relationships

I I represents a marriv:ge link

g Cross

E Parallel

gave our affines" (ego's FZ). If a mehku;-mahkois married,then ego is getting

a wife from the same group which gave his father a wife. This implies a double
debt to that descent group. Notice that this is a native structuralexplanationof
marriage preferences; it does not deny the possibility that, on other grounds
(e.g., political considerations), Indians might indicate a general preference for
marriage with a woman from ego's own mother's local descentgroup, or even a
real MBD (see Goldman I963: I37)."
Parallel-Cousins
In Bara, matrilateralparallel-cousinsare calledpahkd-mahkiu/-6. As can be
seen from Table 2, a gloss for this set of terms is "mother's children." The
kinsman called by this term who is genealogically closest to ego is his uterine
half-sibling, or literally, "mother's" (as opposed to "father's") child. Patri-
lateral parallel-cousinsare called by the same terms as siblings, which contain a
relative age distinction.

Zero Generation Terminology and the "Third Group"

One characteristicsharedby the mehkdl-mahkl/-6 andpahk6-mahki/-6 sets
of terms is that both sets acknowledgethe presenceof a third group (i.e., neither
ego's father's nor his mother's language group), which is representedin the
language group membershipsof alter's parents. Whenever ego calls alter by a
term which traces kinship matrilaterallyfrom ego, it is always the case that one
of alter's parentsis a member of a third languagegroup. In Table 2 the presence
of a third language group (in actualitythere are many more than three, but the
terminology only deals with three at a time) is acknowledged in all of the
possible translationsof the pahk6-mahkd/-6 set of terms. This set indicatesthat

This content downloaded from 62.122.76.60 on Sat, 21 Jun 2014 07:16:34 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 BARA ZERO GENERATION TERMINOLOGY 9I

alter's father is a member of a third language group; otherwise, his children

would be referredto by ego as siblings. Similarly, the use of the matrilateralset
of cross-cousinterms, mehku'mahkiI/-o, indicates that alter's mother is from a
third language group; otherwise alter would be called mehkd-mahkil/-6.
THE QUESTION OF DOMAINS
As stated above, this paper presents three ways of looking at Bara zero
generation terminology, referring to them as the genealogical, alliance, and
sociogeographical approaches. These approaches are to be thought of as first
approximations to three semantic domains of Bara, although at this stage of
analysis these domains are not well defined. The three domains have many
terms in common. It is important to discover and analyze cases where two or

Figure 6: Permitted and Prohibited Marriage

1.

EGO

Bilateral and Patrilateral Cross-cousins: ideal marriage

pahk6 mehktU (mehko)

2.

EGO mehkU-mahkU mehkUl-mahko

I L -----
... -- _
L ..............___ _,._

Matrilineal Cross-cousins: dotted lines indicate that

marriage is possible, but not as desirable as in Diagram 1

bUgoF (bgU)
3.

Ego bayo pahko-mahkU pahko-mahko

Matrilateral Parallel cousins: "Mother's children":

marriage prohibited

This content downloaded from 62.122.76.60 on Sat, 21 Jun 2014 07:16:34 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 92 ETHNOLOGY

more semantic domains are related by overlappingmembership, both to deter-

mine how the various meanings of the polysemousterms these domains share
are related and to discoverthe structuralprimacyof one of the meaningsof each
term within a given domain (Scheffler and Lounsbury I97I: 6; see also Frake
I962; Conklin, I962).12 The structural primacy of a particular meaning of a term

Figure 7: Cross Cousin Marriage Preference

Giving a woman

mehkU A mehko oahkU i OC ahko

1.

Receiving a woman

Giving a woman

- 1 ^
I
2. pahkUlA pahko mehkU 4 (mehko)

EGO mehkU-mahko
I

Giving a woman
Case 1: Patrilateral Cross-cousin Marriage, no sister exchange

Case 2: Matrilateral Cross-cousin Marriage, no sister exchange

This content downloaded from 62.122.76.60 on Sat, 21 Jun 2014 07:16:34 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 BARAZEROGENERATION
TERMINOLOGY
93
TABLE 2
Zero Generation Terms at Three Levels of Inclusion

Longhouse to Longhouse
Local descent group to Language group to
Ego to alter local descent group language group
First group "my siblings" "our brothers" "our brothers"
(e.g., Inambi "our real brothers" "our baura"
Bara) agnates "we speak one language"
agnates
agnates
Second group "my cross cousins" "our cross cousins" "our cross cousins"
(e.g., Inambii "my mother's people" "our affines/brothers- "our mehko-mahkara"
Tuyuka) in-law" "father's sister people"
father's sisters'children "wherewe exchangewomen"
pairs of longhouses
which have exchanged potential affines
women

Third group "my mother's children" "longhouses far away" "our mothers are sisters to
(e.g., Pirata- "distant kinsmen" each other"
puya of "our mothers are sisters; "mother's children from the
waioperi uterine half-sibling our fathers aren't waking-up times"*
(Piracuara) matrilateral brothers" "pahko-mahkara":
parallel cousin "mother'schildrenpeople"

affines of affines

Quotes around statements indicate how Indians talk about relationships. * Information from
C. Hugh-Jones.

is always determined relative to the semantic domain being examined. One

should adequately describe the boundaries of and criteria for membership for
any domain in which a term or set of terms participates.Some authors assume
that boundariesfor the domain of kinship are necessarilyindefinite,13although
in any specific language it should be possible to delineate the boundaries of a
domain and offer evidence supporting one's conclusions. The way in which
distinct domains are interdependentin a given language, involving overlapping,
polysemous terms is probably one of the more interesting areas in the study of
address and reference terminology systems. How, for example, do the three
domains of kin terms, personalnames, and pronounscomplementone another in
a given language? Recognizing that the same term can participatein different
domains clears up some of the confusion regardingstructuralpriority of one of
the meanings of a term. Scheffler and Lounsbury (I97I: 33) recognize the
relativity of priority of meaning with respect to different domains, stating that
the alliance theory school assumes that the terms of prescriptivesystems are
monosemic:

... most importantly, if each of the terms of an alleged asymmetric system of social classification
serves to designate more than one category, it could be that some of these are kin categories while
others are, perhaps, "lineages as wholes" or "positions" within concrete alliance systems.

They also state that without the presumptionof a monosemic set of terms, there

This content downloaded from 62.122.76.60 on Sat, 21 Jun 2014 07:16:34 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 94 ETHNOLOGY

would be no necessityto argue that the systems are "total social systems"with
no possibility of there being a kinship system as part of them. Scheffler (I974:
756-765) suggests this in a discussion of the difference between kinship and
descent systems as well. Other examples of the relativity of priority of a given
significatum with respect to different domains can be found in the literature.
D'Andrade (I970: I34) discussesthe Cochiti term yaya, where it is possibly the
case (and is certainly so accordingto informantstatements) that yaya, ("medi-
cine man") is not even "like yaya ("mother,")" although yaya, when used in
the domain of kinship, is always used for one's actual mother.
It may be that English kinship terms do in fact always have as their primary
meaning their focal kin type. This may not be so in all languages. It is certainly
less obvious for a language like Bara."4In any case, the structuralpriorityof one
meaning must be ascertained for each domain rather than either a priori
assuming that one meaning is prior acrossall domains, or assumingthe various
meanings of a given term are homonymous (SchneiderI968: 102; Casson I973:
278), and that the various domains' boundariesare indefinite.
MEANING OF ZERO GENERATIONTERMS
GENEALOGICAL
One of the meanings of each term considered in this paper is that of a
designator of a class of kin types (Scheffler and Lounsbury I97I: 4). We are
here concerned only with designative meaning, although before an analysis is
complete, what the terms in a given system connote should also be presented.
As stated above, within a given domain-in this case that of genealogically
reckoned kinship-when a particularlexical item has more than one designative
meaning (i.e., is polysemous), these meanings are ordered, with only one of the
meanings as primary. In the domain of genealogically reckoned kinship the
primarymeaning of a kin term is defined in terms of that term's focal kin type.
An analysis of the genealogical meaning of Bara zero generation terms (ex-
cluding those senses derived by metaphorical extension), using the Romney
notation produces the following results. This particular approach has been
chosen because the extended range expressionshighlight the importanceof the
"internal fs" (see Figure 4). Analysis may be carriedout in a number of ways
(see D'Andrade, I970'5). The extended range expressions for the zero gener-
ation terms are as follows, sex of referent being neutralized for purposes of
simplification:
beui,bayo a(+m)'o(m -)ia
mehk6-mahku/-6 a(+m)'o(f-)'a
mehku-mahku/-6 a(+f) o(m -)'a
pahko-mahku/-6 a(+f)io(f--)'a
i= ,2,?
(beu, bayo: i=o,i,2,?)
The reader is referredto Romney and D'Andrade (1964), Romney (I965), and
Casson (I973) for a complete description of notation and procedures.
Two equivalence rules must be given:
i. The half-sibling rule for agnatic half-siblings:
+m- -f o

This content downloaded from 62.122.76.60 on Sat, 21 Jun 2014 07:16:34 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 BARA ZERO GENERATION TERMINOLOGY 95

As stated above, uterine half-siblings are referred to with the pahko-

mahku/-o terms.
2. The merging rule:
...bob... - ...b...
. . indicates nonterminalelements. b indicates the same, but unspecified,
sex.
Informants illustrating how terms for a totally unknown alter would hypo-
thetically be chosen, indicated a definite order to be used.16First, the agnatic
lines are examined for possible relationships, first through ego and alter's
fathers, and then through the female agnates of both. Failing this, a possible
relationship through male agnates of their respective mothers' lines are looked
for; and finally, ego and alter realize they must refer to each other by the
pahk6-mahkui/- set-a default category in many ways. This order of prefer-
ence for reciprocal term usage is extremely important when considering the
significanceof the mehkuS-mahki/.-o set of terms, and is illustratedin Figure 8.
Figure 8 is closer to the way the Bara discuss the differences between the
terms. However, much of the comparativeutility of notational systems like the
one giving the extendedrange expressionsis lost. But Figure 8 does illustratethat
genealogical meaning is, in Bara and similar languages, not too concernedwith
necessarily demonstrable genealogical links nor with degree of relatedness.
However, it is not disputed that for the domain of kinship the zero generation
terms' secondary meanings are ultimately derived by extension from an ego-
centered focal kin type.
A componential analysis would treat the two cross-cousin terms, using a
feature F (where a + I generation female agnate of ego is in the expression)or f
(where no +I generation female agnate of ego is present). This particular
feature is probably not found in many terminologicalsystems, but describing it
presentsno difficulty. Other features follow the lines of the many componential
analyses carried out for similar systems (see Goodenough I967).
ZERO GENERATION TERMS AND MARRIAGE
This section examines the way in which Bara zero generation terms, as
members of the semantic domain dealing with marriage, designate kinds of
marital relations existing between ego and alter or between groups of people
who refer to each other using the terms under discussion.'7The principles of
Vaupes marriage discussed above are the main concern, in particular those
dealing with exchange and alliance. The concept of "rights" to a potential
spouse, a concept frequently found in prescriptivemarriagesystems, is a crucial
one for understandingthe meaning of Baraiterms in regardto marital relations.
In connection with marital "rights" is an examination of the importanceof the
marriages made in the previous generation and how information about these
marriagesis coded in terms ego uses to various same-generationalters. A third
point has to do with how direct, or sister, exchange principlesare reflectedin the
Bara terms being examined.
No longer are we discussing the Bara terms as members of the semantic
domain of genealogically defined kinship-i.e., examining the terms in their
role as kin-designators.This is important to stress because the two semantic

This content downloaded from 62.122.76.60 on Sat, 21 Jun 2014 07:16:34 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 96 ETHNOLOGY

domains are obviously connected. However, they are also independentin some
ways and some conclusions regarding their structure within the domain of
genealogically defined kinship do not hold for the marriage domain; for
example, the question of structuralpriority of the focal kin type must be re-
examined (see Scheffler and LounsburyI97I: 33).
The three diagramsin Figure 9 presenta formal model of the meaning of the
terms when participatingin the marriagedomain, which offers an explanation
of the existence of the two sets of cross-cousinterms and why there is a separate

Figure 8: Zero Generation Terms

This content downloaded from 62.122.76.60 on Sat, 21 Jun 2014 07:16:34 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 BARA ZERO GENERATIONTERMINOLOGY 97

set of matrilateral parallel-cousinterms rather than the more familiar use of

sibling terms for these cousins.
We have already shown that when ego calls his kinsman by the mehku-
mahkiul-6 terms, then his mother is necessarilya member of a third language
group (neither ego's nor ego's mother's). This means that alter's father (ego's
+i generation male of mother's line relative) has entered into an exchange
marriage with a man of a third language group. This man is ego's mehkui's
wife's classificatorybrother. Diagram 2 is identical to Diagram i, except that in
Diagram 2, ego is outside the exchange pattern representedby the "box"-the
formal model of sister exchange marriage perpetuatedover two generations.
Diagram 2 illustratesthe way in which the mehk'l-mahkiu/-6 terms acknowl-
edge an exchange between members of ego's mother's language group and a
third language group; ego and his agnates (i.e., all Bara Indians) do not figure
in this exchange relationship. Similarly, use of the pahko-mahkbi/-6 term
("mother's children") signifies that ego's +i generation female relative of
mother's line has married into a third language group, rather than into ego's,
and is part of an exchange relationshipwith her husband'slocal descent group.
Tracing out Diagram 3 in Figure 9, it becomes apparentthat the woman ego
calls mehkui-mahkois called mehko-mahko by several men whom ego calls
pahko-mahku.l8 Marital expectationsare implied by the mehko-mahkui/-6 set,
and the system is set up so that membersof only one language group can use this
term to a given individual. Use of the other two sets of terms carries the
implication that membersof language groups other than ego's own (i.e., Bara)
have a greater right to marital expectations.
Lounsbury (I962: I309), discussing the implicationsof prescriptivemarriage
rules, offers a description of a category which might be labelled "potential
spouse," which is a category of kinswomen of ego's whom he calls by a specific
kin term:
... It is not the incidence of marriages according to a given rule which is decisive, but the
consequences of such marriage ... this has to do not so much with obligations to marry as with
rights, and more generally, with what might be called hereditary affinity ... And amongst them
is the right (but not necessarilythe obligation) to insure perpetuationof the alliance by arranging
a marriage in a succeeding generation.

The term mehko-mahko implies to some degree this "hereditaryaffinity," and

stands in contrast to the term mehkiu-mahko,which implies that another man,
from a third language group, stands in a position of hereditaryaffinity to that
category of kinswomen. Lounsbury makes the point that marriages can serve
several interests. The term mehko-mahko can be seen as designating a class of
kinswomen to whom ego has a "first claim" right. If such a marriage takes
place, it is very much approved.That a man does not always marry his closest
possible mehko-mahko (nor, at times, any of the women he calls by that term)
is not only the result of demographicand idiosyncraticfactors such as personal
preferences, but probably also due to the presence of more than one type of
strategy operating in Tukanoan decision-makingabout marriage.
Mehko-mahkara ("children of Bara women") and pahko-mahka,ra
("mother's children people") are terms which refer to classesof people (usually
specific language groups ) with whom a given local group of Bara stand (or do

This content downloaded from 62.122.76.60 on Sat, 21 Jun 2014 07:16:34 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 98 ETHNOLOGY

Figure 9: Exchange Marriageand Zero Generation Terminology

pahkU pahko mehkU mehko

EGO ba
EGO bayo mehko-mahklU mehko-mahko
I

pahpahkpahko mehkU (mehko) b'gU C4bUgo

2. Ebayo
EGO bayo mehkj- mehklU- pahko- L lpahko-
aU mahkUY mahko mahkU mahk

pahklU pahko mehkti (m

(mehko) (blUgiU)4)bUgo mehkU mehko

3.

EGO1? bayo mehkl- -mehkU- pahk6o-- pahko- mehk -A mehko-

mahkUt mahko mahkU T mahko mahktl mahko

not stand) in a traditionalrelationshipof marital exchange. An example can be

found here of the difference in meaning of zero generation terms when
participatingin the genealogically reckoned kinship domain versus the marital
semantic domain. When a particularego is speaking of his own kinsmen who
are called by themehko-mahku/-o andpahko-mahkul/-6sets of terms, selection
of alters to be called by these terms is determined by ego's own genealogically
defined kinsmen. He refers to these kinsmen as a class as mehko-pond and
pahko-pond. When the traditional marital relations which exist between local
groups are being referredto, however, the terms used are mehko-mahkaraand
pahko-mahka'ra,and these refer to a single or at most two other language
groups with whom ego's local group traditionallyhas (or has not) exchanged
women. For example, Bara Indianson the InambuiRiver state that their mehko-
mahkara are Tuyuka, speaking as if for the entire Bara language group, yet in
reality Bara on other rivers name other language groups (e.g., Tatuyo) as
standing in this traditional relationship with them. Inambii Bara name Cara-
pana as their pahko-mahkara (affines of affines, "mother's children"), but this
does not hold for Bara everywhere.A specificBara Indian on the Inambii River

This content downloaded from 62.122.76.60 on Sat, 21 Jun 2014 07:16:34 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 BARA ZERO GENERATION TERMINOLOGY 99

may have as his personalgenealogically reckonedmehko-pond and pahko-pona

individuals who belong to neither the Tuyuka nor the Carapana language
group. Yet, when the traditional Inambu Bara marital alliances are being
discussed, he too states that Tuyuka are mehko-mahkdra,even though none of
his genealogically close mehkos have actually married Tuyuka men.
To conclude, Bara terminology is an elaboration of the Dravidian type with
regard to the marital domain as well as the genealogically reckoned kinship
domain. Whereas all nonagnates are affines in classic Dravidian systems, the
pahko-mahku/-6 set of terms refers to nonagnates who cannot be affines. A
gloss for this set within the marital semantic domain might be "affines of
affines." The contrasting mehko-mahku/6 and mehku-mahk5/-6 sets can be
seen as a recognition, incorporatedinto the terminology, of the effects of this
"third group's" participationin marital exchanges on any Indian's "first claim"
rights to his or her mehko-pona.
The marital meaning of the pahko-mahkara set of terms is illustrated by a
Paneroa myth recorded by C. Hugh-Jones: two men are co-husbands of the
same woman (all three are from different language groups) and hence call each
other pahko-mahku. This illustrates the pahko-mahkara relationship existing
between two language groups when the two groups exchange women with a
third, but do not intermarrybetween themselves. The potential for competition,
jealousy, and suspicionarising from this situation is highlighted in the myth by
having the men marriedto the same woman. In contrast,a Bara myth illustrates
genealogically-reckonedkinship meaning. Two full brothersbecome jealous and
of their pahko-mahku, a deer-child whose father is a forest demon and who is
pictured as getting most of the attention from their mother. The brothers
eventually succeed in poisoning their stepfather and forcing the deer-child to
flee.
ZERO GENERATION TERMS AND SOCIOGEOGRAPHICDISTANCE

Romney and Epling (I958: 60) argue that Kariera kinship terminology
makes a basic dichotomy between "our side" and "the other side." Buchler and
Selby (I968: I36) have termed this a "sociogeographical"model of the dichot-
omy which characterizesall Dravidian systems. Figure Io shows the three-fold

Figure 10: Sociogeographic Distance

Increasing Sociogeographical Distance

"Maha" ('people') Non-Tukanoans

'First group' 'Second group' 'Third group' Maku

Ego "Brother-people" "Children of Bara "Mother's Whites

WomenPeople" Children People"
Spirits
Ego's "Our baUra" "Our mehko-mahkara" "Our pahko-mahkara"
Local Descent Ghosts
Group "From the same "Close neighbors" "People who live
longhouse" far away" Etc.
"People we exchange
"Our closest, women with" No implied on-going
most trusted interaction
relatives"

This content downloaded from 62.122.76.60 on Sat, 21 Jun 2014 07:16:34 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 Ioo ETHNOLOGY

division of Bara zero generation terms expressedin terms of sociogeographical

distance rather than genealogy or marriage. Figure Io represents a way of
talking about "kinds of people and near-people." In this domain, the terms
belonging to the sets bauira,mehko-mahkara, and pahko-mahkara primarily
designate relative sociogeographicaldistance for those individuals and groups
falling within an overall class of maha ("people"). When using these terms in
this fashion, with respectto relative physical distanceone's baiira are conceived
of as living with the speaker (the speakercan be referringto himself or herself
as an individual Bara, to a local descentgroup of Bara, or to the entire language
group). Mehko'-mahka'ra are spoken of as living close to oneself and one's own
local descent group. The actual territorial arrangements between affinally
related local units are more complex; this is recognized by all Tukanoans
(Jackson I976). One's pahko-mahkara are conceptualizedas living far away.21
A Tukanoan will classify any Indians who live far away as pahko-mahkara,
provided they fall within the category of maha ("people"). This indicatesthat
they are "people like us" who live far away and with whom there is no on-going
interaction.These sets of terms are also used to expressrelativeaffectivedistance
concerning trustworthiness,loyalty, and commitment or the lack of these, or
relative culturaldistance, involving the notion that the fartheraway people live,
the more likely they are to be different-to do things differently, to speak
languages which are extremely different from the ones one knows, etc. The
terms also expressrelativesocial distance, indicatingthe degree to which one can
expect regularizedreciprocity,military aid, absence of conflicts of interest, and
so forth. If, in a given context, a Tukanoan wants to indicate an ambiguous, if
not suspicious, socially distant type of relationship,the termspahko-mahku/6
are selected. A local descent group might similarlybe spoken of from the point
of view of a local Bara group, or an entire language group might be so
designated. At times use of the pahko-mahkaraterms indicatessolely that such-
and-such a group of people live very far away.
The social psychological distance signified by the pahko-mahku/-6 terms is
illustratedby many myths in which the termsexpressan ambiguousrelationship
between the protagonist and his pahko-mahki/-o or pahk6-pona. A man's
pahko-mahkiuis a "person" rather than a demon or spirit. However, almost
always his pahko-pona play tricks on him. His pahko-pona are not necessarily
his antagonists,but ratherare people who cheat him or do him harm if there are
benefits to be gained from such behavior. Pahko-pona are either indifferent to
one's well-being or, when convenient, dangerous. Myths dealing with the
relationship betweenpahko-pona (or whole groups which are pahko-mahkara
to each other) do not illustrate failure to live up to expectations as much as
potential trickery brought about by opportunism and a lack of obligations,
although at times the distance between certain individualswho are pahko-pona
or groups which are each other's pahko-mahkara is not merely caused by
indifferenceand ambivalence,but causedby conflictof interestand competition.
The question can be raised whether postulating a separatesemantic domain
dealing with "kinds of people" and relative sociogeographicdistance is war-
ranted for Bara, since the meanings of the zero generation terms are related to,
and possibly eventually derive from, their meanings when participatingin the
kinship and marriage domains. That is, the meanings being discussed in this

This content downloaded from 62.122.76.60 on Sat, 21 Jun 2014 07:16:34 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 BARA ZERO GENERATION TERMINOLOGY IOI

section may ultimately be found to be connotative meanings contained within

the other two domains. However, it is useful at least in this stage of analysis to
consider that the dimension of sociogeographicaldistance constitutes an auton-
omous domain, for it is definitely the case that a particularterm at times refers
not at all to either genealogical or marital relationships.Other Bara domains
(for example, one containing status designators) will perhapsbe found to exist,
containing some or all of the zero generation terms. It should be noted that one
of the nonkinship meanings of a given term can have designative meaning and
logical priority (outside of the domain of kinship) without being historically,
ontogenetically,or cognitively prior.22
CONCLUSIONS
This paper has not by any means presenteda complete account of Bara zero
generation terminology, nor even of a single domain containing these terms. It
suggests that any two or more domains which have many terms in common are
probably related in a fashion similar to the way polysemic meanings of a single
term are related. An important aspect of understandingthe meaning of terms
within a given semantic domain, then, is to understandrelationshipsbetween
related domains. It has been suggested that at least three Bara domains, each
containing some zero generation terms in common, are related to one another in
this way. Other domains, such as one dealing with status, also possiblyexist and
are related. These relationships-between domains and between senses of terms
when participatingin the various domains-must be discovered, rather than a
priori assumed.
This paper has also stressedthe need to at times make statementsof priority
among rules (Bright and Minnick I966: 382). This is necessaryin order to know
how to decide whether to apply the mehko-mahklu/-oor mehku-mahkuL/-6sets
to a Bara "cross-cousin,"and to know which terms are far more likely to be
used when individuals are related through more than one genealogical path
(with different terminological results), as frequently happens in small-scale
societies.
In general, it is the task of the analyst to consider as potentially related all
domains which have cross-cuttingmemberships,working with this assumption
rather than a priori excluding all but one. Analysis is then undertakenon how
the meanings of a single term are related, how the terms in a given domain are
related, and how domains are related. This is similar to how a term is analyzed:
first homonymy is ascertained(e.g., sale vs. sail) and then polysemy (sail, verb,
and sail, noun; Schefflerand LounsburyI97I: 7). It will be found that in some
cases hierarchy of meaning (e.g., designation as contrastedto connotation, and
structural priority) is dependent on the domain being considered, and that
participationin different domains reverses or otherwise changes the hierarchy
among meanings of a term. For example, it is not necessarilythe case that zero
generation terms always have a "kin category-designatingsense" and "kin
status-connotingsense," although this might always be true within the domain
of kinship.
NOTES
i. Data discussed in this paper were gathered during dissertation research in Columbia from
October, I968 to November, I970, with support from the Danforth Foundation and the Stanford

This content downloaded from 62.122.76.60 on Sat, 21 Jun 2014 07:16:34 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
I02 ETHNOLOGY

Committee for Research in International Studies. An earlier draft was read at the Mathematics
Social Science Board Conference on "Formal Methods in Kinship Semantics," held in Riverside,
California, December 17-20, 1972. Charles Frake, Renato Rosaldo, Ellen Basso, Christine Hugh-
Jones, Hugh Gladwin, and David Kronenfeld read earlier drafts of this paper; their encour-
agement and comments are very much appreciated.
2. The discrepancybetween "Bara zero generationterminology"and "Vaupes marriagesystem" is
unavoidable (see below). In a connubium involving marriage classes identified with different
languages, the unit of analysis for a specific kinship terminology necessarilydiffers from the unit
of analysis for the entire marriage system.
3. The label language group is not entirely satisfactory,since it usually refers to a linguistic rather
than a social unit. Use of terms specifically referring to marriage, such as exogamous group, has
been avoided, since it has not been conclusively established that the language-affiliated units are
coterminous with the minimal exogamous units in the same manner throughout the region.
4. For further ethnographic information on the central Northwest Amazon, see Goldman (1963);
Sorensen (1967); Reichel-Dolmatoff (I97I); Jackson (1972; I974); and S. Hugh-Jones (I974).
5. Sorensen (I967: 670) gives a population of about Io,ooo for the central Northwest Amazon,
comparing the size of its territory to New England.
6. Since this paper is concerned with Bara kinship terminology and Vaupes language group
exogamy, it does not consider Maku Indians, who are more forest than river oriented, who speak
non-Tukanoan languages, and who do not have a rule of linguistic exogamy. Cubeo (Goldman
I963) also do not have to marry out of their linguistic unit.
7. Investigators have described Tukano, a language similar to Bara, as Iroquois (Fulop 1955;
Sorensen 1967: 677), following Murdock (I949: 263). However, Bari, Tukano, Paneroa (C.
Hugh-Jones I970), and from incomplete data, Tuyuka and Tatuyo, are better described as
Dravidian. Following Buchler and Selby (1968: 233), Dravidian terminologies distinguish
"prohibited" women from "lawful" women, and are associated with positive marriage rules (cf.
Dumont 1953). Iroquois terminology only stipulates which women are prohibited; the exchange
of women is governed by other institutions and there is no positive marriage rule.
8. Discussions are usually concerned with prohibitions "on marryingpeople who marry the people
you marry." (Maclachlan, comment on Beals I97I: 145; see also Dumont 1957: 27-28).
9. This is fundamentallydifferent from unilateral marriagesystems with patrilinealdescent, where
ego's MBD and FZD are never from the same patriline. In Bara, two women can be from the
same patriline (i.e., language group), and yet be called by different terms, depending on whether
their mother were Barai (mehko-mahko) or not (mehku-mahko).
io. This "ideal situation" was obtained from informant speculationsabout their own terminology
and its usage. It does not necessarilyimply that marriage to people who do not have Bara mothers
is wrong; after all, over twenty (as opposed to the two in a classically Dravidian scheme) language
groups participatein the marriage system. Furthermore,kin term usage was observedto change in
some instances, and no claim is being made that once a mehkii-mahkiu/-o is married, he or she
will be called that term for life.
Ix. No statistically significant preference for a genealogically reckoned FZD over MBD (or vice
versa) was found in a sample of x80 marriages (Jackson 1973).
12. An example comes from Scheffler and Lounsbury (I971), discussing the Frenchfemme as a
member of the semantic domain of kinship. They note that it is not necessarilythe case that a term
has one structurally primary significatum in an absolute sense, i.e., one which is primary in all
domains in which it participates.In the semantic domain of kinship, presumablyfemme (wife) is
structurallyprior tofemme (woman) also a member of the domain of kinship. In another domain
which includes both meanings, presumablythe reverse (in structuralpriority) might be the case.
I3. See Basso (1973: 3).
I4. Lounsbury (1964: 357) himself has suggested that our own kinship semantics might lead us to
be ethnocentric.
I5. D'Andrade (1970: 119) states: "The major point here, however, is that the use of a
genealogical structure and a correspondingnotational system does not force the term uncle to be
treated disjunctively, or extensionally, or conjunctively with relational concepts. The choice of
approach depends on the analyst's preferences,and carrieswith it the responsibilityto incorporate
enough additional material into the genealogical-terminologicalstructureso that the choice can be
explained clearly."
i6. This rarely if ever happens, since the vast majorityof Tukanoans are known to one another, or
by mentioning one or two of their closest kinsmen, can easily agree on the properreciprocalterms

This content downloaded from 62.122.76.60 on Sat, 21 Jun 2014 07:16:34 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 BARA ZERO GENERATION TERMINOLOGY 103

to be used. This is not to say that kinship paths are not occasionally retraced (at times such
redefinitions being disputed by some individuals). This usually happens because a marriage (e.g.,
ZD) has produced incongruities in the terminology, and the terms are adjusted.
17. This paper discusses only designative meaning for any domain. The objections it raises to some
aspectsof formal analyses of kin terminology are not "usage" objections (dealing with how terms
are actually used in speech) nor concerned with whether or not genealogical meaning is ultimately
derived from behavioral facts (see D'Andrade I970: 13I).
i8. Bara zero generation terminology considers only three patrilines (language groups) at a time.
Over twenty language groups exist in the Vaupes and a given ego may have kinsmen whom he
calls pahkd-mahkuh/-6 from several of these, depending in part where his mother's sisters have
married. Mahkara glosses as "people;" pona glosses as "offspring." Thus, pahko-mahkara means
"mother's children people" and refers to an entire local descent group or language group. Pahko-
pona refers to a specific ego's mother's sisters' children. Of all of ego's pahko-mahkdra, however,
obviously only those who belong to the same language group as the mother of ego's mehkuu-
mahko call her mehko-mahko.
19. The acutal situation is somewhat more complex (Jackson I972, I976), particularlygiven the
question of phratric organization.
20. The mehku"-mahku/-. set of terms, as indicated, is a category that designates alters who, to
some extent, have married inappropriately. This set is never extended to cover a category of
people, although a given ego might very well have more than one alter whom he calls by one of
these terms.
21. In classically Dravidian systems, although the terminology postulates only agnates and affines,
in actuality they must deal with three groups as well. Dumont (1957: 27) discusses the Pramalai
Kallar's concern with distance between ego and his agnates and his matrilateralparallel cousins,
who are terminologically equated with siblings. He states that, as a result of patrilocal rules of
residence, a territorial unit made up of kin becomes surrounded by affinal places, which also
intermarrywith other places. These "third place" people are: "hence 'brothers' . . . as the affine
of my affine is kin to me" (Dumont 1957: 28). Thus, he describes a situation in which matrilateral
parallel cousins are conceived as separate from siblings, and where the results of ego's affines
marrying into other "places" are apparentin the geographical location of the various local descent
groups. Social distance is also mirrored in such territorial arrangements. Vaupes pahko-mahkdra
cannot in any sense be considered "theoretical brothers," although one meaning of this term is
"affine or my affine." One reason is perhaps the fact that affines of affines in the Vaupes are not
isolated cases easily forgotten, since they always belong to a third language group. Furthermore,
the actual situation (somewhat simplified here) involves not two or three intermarryinggroups,
but over twenty. It is doubtful if an Indian would ever describe the prohibition of marriage
between an individual and his pahko-pona as being due to the fact that his matrilateral parallel
cousins are "like siblings;" rather, they are too distant to become affines.
22. This is Scheffler and Lounsbury's (I97I: 8, ii) argument regardingfemme and its primary
meaning of "wife" when it participates in the domain of kinship (and is also the point made by
the Cochiti yaya example given above), regardlessof the historical priority of another meaning of
the term (e.g., "woman").
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Atlas de Colombia. I969. Instituto geografico "Augstin Codazzi." Bogota.
Basso, E. B. I973. The Use of Portuguese in Kalapalo (Xingu Carib) Encounters:Changes in
a Brazilian Communications Network. Language in Society 2: I-I9.
Bright, W., and J. Minnick. I966. Reduction Rules in Fox Kinship. SouthwesternJournal of
Anthropology 22: 381-387.
Buchler, I. R., and H. A. Selby. 1968. Kinship and Social Organization: An Introduction to
Theory and Method. New York.
Casson, R. W. I973. Paired Polarity Relations in the Formal Analysis of a Turkish Kinship
Terminology. Ethnology 12: 275-298.
Conklin, H. C. 1962. Lexicographical Treatment of Folk Taxonomies. Problems in Lexico-
graphy, ed. F. W. Householder and S. Saporta, Publication 21. Bloomington.
D'Andrade, R. G. I970. Structure and Syntax in the Semantic Analysis of Kinship Termi-
nologies. Cognition: A Multiple View, ed. P. Garvan, pp. 87-I43. New York.
Dumont, L. I953. The Dravidian Kinship Terminology as an Expression of Marriage. Man
53: 34-39.

This content downloaded from 62.122.76.60 on Sat, 21 Jun 2014 07:16:34 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
I04 ETHNOLOGY

9-57. Hierarchy and Marriage Alliance in South Indian Kinship. Occasional Papers
of the Royal Anthropological Institute 12.
Frake, C. 0. 1962. The EthnographicStudy of Cognitive Systems. Anthropology and Human
Behavior, ed. T. Gladwin and W. C. Sturtevant, pp. 72-85. Anthropological Society of
Washington.
Fulop, M. 1955. Notas sobre los terminos y el sistema de parentesco de los Tukano. Revista
Colombiana de Antropologia 4: 123-164.
Goldman, I. I963 The Cubeo: Indians of the Northwest Amazon. Illinois Studies in
Anthropology No. 2. Urbana.
Goodenough, W. H. 1967. Componential Analysis. Science 156: 1203-1209.
Hugh-Jones, C. I970. Untitled ms. on Piraparana (Colombia) social structure.
Hugh-Jones, S. 1974. Male Initiation and Cosmology Among the Barasana Indians of the
Vaupes Area of Colombia. Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation, King's College, Cambridge
University.
Hymes, D. 196I. Discussion of Burling's paper. American Anthropologist 66: II6-II9.
Jackson, J. E. 1972. Marriage and Linguistic Identity Among the Bara Indians of the
Vaupes, Colombia. Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation, Stanford University.
1973. Vaupes Marriage Practices. Paper read at symposiumon Marriage Practicesin
Lowland South America, American Anthropological Association Annual Meetings, New
Orleans. (Revised version in Amazonian Marriage Practices, ed. K. Kensinger, in press.)
I974. Language Identity of the Colombian Vaupes Indians. Explorations in the
Ethnography of Speaking, ed. R. Bauman and J. Sherzer. pp. 50-64. New York.
1976. Vaupes Marriage: A Network System in an UndifferentiatedLowland Area of
South America. Regional Analysis, Vol. II, Social Systems, ed. C. Smith, pp. 65-93. New
York.
Lounsbury, F. G. I956. A Semantic Analysis of Pawnee Kinship Usage. Language 32: 158-
I94.
1962. Review of R. Needham, Structure and Sentiment. American Anthropologist
64: 1302-I310.
I964. The Formal Analysis of the Crow- and Omaha-type Kinship Terminologies.
Explorations in Cultural Anthropology, ed. W. Goodenough, pp. 35I-393. New York.
Maclachlan, M. D. 1971. Discussion of Beals's paper. Symposium on Dravidian Civilization,
ed. Sjoberg, pp. I43-145. Austin.
Murdock, G. P. 1949. Social Structure. New York.
Needham, R. I966. Age, Category and Descent. Bijdragen Tot de Taal-, Land- en Volken-
kunde I22: 1-35.
Reichel-Dolmatoff, G. 1971. Amazonian Cosmos: The Sexual and Religious Symbolism of the
Tukano Indians. Chicago.
Romney, A. K. I965. Kalmuk Mongol and the Classification of Lineal Kinship Termi-
nologies. American Anthropologist 67: 127-141.
Romney, A. K., and R. G. D'Andrade. I964. Cognitive Aspects of English Kin Terms.
American Anthropologist 66: I46-I70.
Scheffler, H. W. I974. Kinship, Descent, and Alliance. Handbook of Social and Cultural
Anthropology, ed. J. Honigmann, pp. 747-794. New York.
Scheffler, H. W., and F. G. Lounsbury. 1971. A Study in StructuralSemantics: The Siriono
Kinship System. Englewood Cliffs.
Schneider, D. M. 1968. American Kinship: A Cultural Account. Englewood Cliffs.
Shapiro, W. I971. Structuralism Versus Sociology: A Review of Maybury-Lewis's Akwe-
Shavante Society. Mankind 8: 64-66.
Sorensen, A. P., Jr. 1967. Multilingualism in the Northwest Amazon. American Anthropolo-
gist 69: 670-682.

This content downloaded from 62.122.76.60 on Sat, 21 Jun 2014 07:16:34 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions