ARCH10150 – Anthropology

Name: Caolan Maher Student ID: 21738049

Anthropology “… tried to understand the ways in which human lives are unique, but also the
sense in which we are all similar”

Introduction

The above quote is taken from Chapter 1 of Thomas Hyland Eriksen’s detailed book titled
‘Small Places, Large issues: An introduction into Social and Cultural anthropology ‘.

Thomas Eriksen is a Norwegian Anthropologist from the university of Oslo who’s conducted
fieldwork as far afield as the landmass of Australia to the isolated Creole Islands in the Indian
ocean. (University of Oslo, 2022). In unpacking this quote in greater detail, Eriksen explains
that Social and Cultural anthropology is concerned with all aspects of human civilization and
that the study of anthropology attempts to comprehend the ways in which human lives are
distinct and the many ways in which we are all similar (Eriksen, 2015 p.1).

People in different parts of the world live, socialise and even eat in very different
circumstances with Eric Wolf describing anthropology as “the most scientific of the
humanities, the most humanist of sciences”. In this regard, Anthropology is scientific in its
meticulous investigation of context, empirical data, and observation, with this aspect of the
discipline illustrating just how beautifully varied and unique human culture is around the
world. (Peregrine et al. 2012 p.593)

The humanist side of anthropology focuses on the inventive and insightful exploration of the
mind and people, where many of us, despite being vastly separated by distance or geography
can directly relate to. Eriksen specifically describes this ‘commonality’ and ‘difference’ we
all share as a concept that ‘Oscillates between the universal and particular’. ( Eriksen, 2015
p.2 )

In this essay, I wish to illustrate several anthropological themes and compare and contrast
how these themes are expressed using specific anthropological examples.
 Kinship and Group identity

Amongst Early Anthropologists such as Malinowski or Levi-Strauss’, kinship was the

component of social life that became the pivot for the development of all the major
paradigms in anthropology. In uncovering the ‘maintenance of order’ which held these tribal
groups together, anthropologists discovered that these peoples employed the vocabulary of
family to frame many of their actions, even those with political, economic, and religious
goals. ( Overing, Fortis, Margiotti, 2015 p.36 )

This notion of kinship extends beyond the boundaries of political or religious ordeals and
even governs the identity and genesis of one’s own kin. A case in point would be many of the
Muslim societies studied today such as the Ait Khebbech Tribe located in South East
Morroco.( Gélard 2004, p.565 ) Symbolic representations are notably apparent in the social
fiction of this group, particularly in its origin and associated foundation myth. The fictional
narrative opens with the appearance of the paternal ancestor “Khebbach”, who appears out of
nowhere, likely lost from his family. This characters entrance into the world functions to
explain the ‘tribal wanderings’ of the various groups themselves many of whom previously
practised a nomadic lifestyle in the Sahara (before becoming settled)(Munson, 1993 p. 276 ).
Then, we hear of Khebbachs maternal Mother who was a descendant of the prophet Shrifa
and his wife idrrisid, who was of the same dynastic line as his mother. Khebbach acquires
this genealogical prestige through uterine ties or the maternal line. This is significant since
the Arab system of kinship is exclusively patrilineal and Virilocal, but the legend of the Ait
Khebbach contradicts this as does other marriage practices such as the importance of good
luck or baraka the wife brings to a union. ( Gélard p.566 )

Similar to the Ait Khebbach, the Polynesian islands of Hawaii feature an analgous system of
kinship regarding the origin and formation of One’s kin. Here, kinship reaches well beyond
the immediate biological family and the vocabulary of kinship should be considered in the
context of the entire community of kith and kin, including spouses, and even adopted groups.
( Handy, 1951, p. 187 ) The largest of the Hawaiian islands is Kau and the folk here identify
themselves as one tribe the maka-ainana, born from a single parental stock of the ‘Ohana’.
Their Tribal slogan is as follows. ( Handy, 1950, p.172 )

“Offshoots of one lineage are the people of Ka'u,

From the uplands to the sea,
From border to border”

in contrast to many Warlike Māori villages with fortified village settlements, intertribal strife
did not exist to the same extent as it did in Hawaii. As a result, the island witnessed a
dispersed community of agriculturists bonded together by adoption, blood and marriage. A
Kau village elder referred to his land of birth as his Kula Iwi or the ( Plains of one’s bones )
and moreover, the Ainana itself translates to “that which feeds” which underscores the
importance of kinship terminology. ( Handy, 1950, p.175 )
Closer to home in Ireland, Kinship is expressed similarly but also in its own unique and
individual way. During the late 1960’s, first-hand anthropological fieldwork was conducted
from the small 300-person settlement in Cashel, Southwest Donegal.

By virtue of the same families occupying the village for 350 years alongside the small
varying degrees to everyone else in the village”.( Kane, 1968 p.246) . Despite this
interrelation, they do not identify as being ‘one people’ or coming from ‘one stock’, unlike
our previous groups and even refer to any family collaterals beyond second cousins as
“Friends”. Moreover, they group families with shared surnames into separate Clans such that
it infers ideas of loyalties and mutual obligation. They deem for instance, that the O’Reillys
from Cashel are different from the O’Reillys of Ballyglass, despite the two families residing
in the same area. (Kane, p.247 )

Taro Plantation in Hawaii; A staple food crop

Childs, Iraphne R. Taro Farm Waipio Valley, Hawaii 1982. QUT. JSTOR,
https://jstor.org/stable/community.28436178. Accessed 25 May 2022.
 RITUAL AND SYMBOLIC INVERSION

Ritual can be thought of as a universal way of conveying information about social status or
information about how the human mind operates, yet the way in which this ritual is
elaborated varies greatly from place to place and from culture to culture (David Parkin p.717
)

Amongst the many human rituals, Anthropologist Max Gluckman observed a plethora of odd
rituals where conventional rules, traditions, and hierarchies are turned upside down. This is a
process many anthropologists characterise as ritual or ‘symbolic inversion’. ( Eriksen, 2015,
p.273)(Pandian, 2001, p.557)

One of these inversions occurs amongst the Swazi tribe of South Africa during the
coronation of a new ruler. During this pivotal moment of transition, every citizen was
expected to ridicule and criticize the ruler in public, creating a spectacular display of his
incompetence. The Royal Ritual of Inauguration begins with the kings’ own warriors singing
the sacred ‘hand song’ mocking him and what follows is the divine Simemo sung by his high
councillor consisting of the following refrain. (Apter, 1983, p.523)

“Jjiya oh o o King, alas for your fate

Jjlya oh o o King, they reject they reject thee
Jjiya oh o o King, they hate thee”

Andrew Apter (1983) having analysed this ritual in detail believes, the inversion ritual itself
serves a critical function and is not merely intended for entertainment purposes, even though
the Slander according to Apter can be considered as a ‘species of joking relationship’. Apter
believes this momentary act of public slander strengthens the divine ‘office of kingship’ by
emphasising a potential rebellion, that in turn holds the king accountable to his future public
duties.

In Medieval and Renaissance Europe, during the yearly events of carnival, open social
criticism was often permitted by the public at these rare once off events. (Eriksen, 2015,
p.273 ). The carnivals of Medieval Europe were similar to the Swazi’s tribe affair in that they
were animated, spectacular and uniquely saw a world which was temporarily ‘down instead
of up, earth instead of heaven and backside instead of head’(hence the common circus
handstand motif).(Eshelman, Lachmann & Davis, 1988 p. 147 ). The carnival too witnessed
an inversion of traditional power structures where a mock king was paraded through the
streets and displayed as a fool or a child and publicly laughed at. ( Scribner, 1978, p.320 ) .

A ritual preformed amongst the Nyoro people of Uganda operates along the similar theme of
reversal, but this time expressed in its own exclusive way. A male diviner or shaman tosses 9
cowrie shells from his left hand onto black goatskin, which he and his possessory spirit will
interpret the formation to determine the source of local disease or disaster. With this
performance, the shaman is inverting the natural order since Men from the Nyoro are
typically identified with the right hand, while women are connected with the left.( Parkin,
2015, p.717 ) ( Needham, 1967, p.433, 434) However, as diviners, they are able to see what
ordinary humans cannot and thus fall outside the sphere of regular human capacities. This
ritual act of using the left hand, also serves to emphasise the importance of the divination
taking place since a symbolic reversal occurs in other special circumstances such as; Cows
ordinarily being milked from the right side, BUT upon the death of a king, the cow is milked
from the left and some of its liquid poured into the corpses mouth ( Needham, p.430 )

“Medicine Mans” Cowrie bracelet: Uganda

Medicine Man’s Circlet Made of Hide Thong Sewn Wit. JSTOR,

https://jstor.org/stable/community.26321739. Accessed 24 May 2022.

Swazi King preforming a dance

Fisher, Angela. A Swazi King, Swaziland. Trust for African Rock Art. Private Collection,
JSTOR, https://jstor.org/stable/al.ch.document.bfacp1b10067. Accessed 24 May 2022.
 GIFT AND GIFT EXCHANGE

Gift exchange alongside the trade of goods can be categorised as an ‘economic activity’
However, its relevance extends far beyond what is typically associated with the economy,
especially from the point of view of our own western capitalist societies.

For early anthropologists such as Mauss, Reciprocal gift giving, and the institution of the gift
can be viewed as fundamental to the workings of a society itself. (Eriksen, 2015, p.226 ) In
essence, Gifts are both socially integrating and defining since they reaffirm certain
relationships between individuals as well as groups.( Eriksen, p.225 )

The Trobriand islanders are a virilocal and matrilineal horticulture group based in the
archipelago of Papa New Guinea. Much of the initial work on this sophisticated group was
carried out by Malinowski in his seminal work Argonauts of the western pacific which
demonstrated a complex system of trade and exchange. More than 80 variants of trade were
identified by British anthropologist John Davis, and one which highlights the themes of
obligation and politics quite clearly is the Yam plant. (Eriksen, p.222 ) Here, after the harvest
season, massive quantities are displayed outside various homes, much of which was not
produced by the homeowner themselves. Instead, these heaps of yams are mandatory gifts
from relatives and (perhaps) political clients with the size indicating who is particularly
influential in the community.(Eriksen, p.221 ) These ostentatious piles of yam reveal
important ‘matrilineal kin and affineal connections’ alongside being a fundamental tool in
political playmaking.(McCarthy, 2012, p.137). Clearly, the giving of gifts in this scenario is
instrumental in displaying ones status with Mosko (2009) even arguing the plant constitutes a
key template for ‘meaningful trobriand social action’.( Mosko,2009, p.680 )

Across the Atlantic, "Potlatch" was the name of a well-known social event that used to be
common on the northwestern coast of America. One could argue this event had parallels in
the Yam plant exchange especially in terms of its political ramifications, yet it was certainly a
display on a grander and more excessive scale. The nobility were constantly seeking to
improve their status by offering more and more dramatic gifts to one another. This process
could be called a ‘competitive gift exchange’ And usually began a runaway cycle of
acceleration. The extravagant display became so over the top that chiefs began burning
valuables such as salted fish and tents and even disposing of slaves into the sea. (Eriksen,
p.225 ).

Blankets piled up for Potlatch.

MacCarthy, 2012, p.137 Blankets Piled up in a House. JSTOR,

https://jstor.org/stable/community.13896385.
Accessed 24 May 2022.
 CONCLUSION

This essay has attempted to comprehend the ways in which human lives are distinct and the
many ways in which we are all similar. I agree with Thomas Eriksen’s statement and believe
through the process of comparison/contrast I have underlined just how diverse human
cultures are, yet simultaneously shown how reoccurring themes appear across space and time.

All 3 areas of my investigation including ritual, exchange, and kinship have demonstrated the
great variety between us but also established our universal humanity on this planet. Much of
my focus was on non-western societies but that is not to say we are all that different even in
more modern times. One only needs to look so far as a ‘symbolic reversal’ that took place
when the Spanish police force took to the streets during the covid 19 pandemic to play
Guitar, an observation which Thomas Hyland Eriksen may “hypothetically” point out as
‘actual social conflicts played out as theatrical performances’ .(Eriksen, 2015, p.274 )

Source: https://www.sapiens.org/culture/coronavirus-
rituals/
 Bibliography:

Eriksen T. (2015) Small Places, Large Issues. An introduction to social and cultural

anthropology (4th edition). London, Pluto Books

Peregrine, P., Moses, Y.T., Goodman, A., Lamphere, L. and Peacock, J.L. (2012), What Is
Science in Anthropology?. American Anthropologist, 114: 593-597. 

https://www.sv.uio.no/sai/english/people/aca/geirthe/ website reference.

Overing J, Fortis P, Margiotti M ( 2015 ) ‘Kinship in Anthropology’ (eds) International

Encyclopaedia of the Social and Behavioural Sciences. 2nd edn. Cambridge . Elsevier Press

Parkin J, David ‘Ritual’ (2015 ) (eds) International Encyclopaedia of the Social and
Behavioural Sciences. 2nd edn. Cambridge . Elsevier Press

Gélard, M.-L. (2004). Representations of Kinship. Agnatic Ideology and Uterine Values in a
Berber-Speaking Tribe (Southeast Morocco). Anthropos, 99(2), 565–572.

SHARP, L. (1934). the social organization of the yir-yoront tribe, Cape York Peninsula (Part
I. Kinship And The Family). Oceania, 4(4), 404–431.

Munson, H. (1993). Rethinking Gellner’s Segmentary Analysis of Morocco’s Ait cAtta. Man,
28(2), 267–280.

Handy, E. S. C., & Pukui, M. K. (1950). THE HAWAIIAN FAMILY SYSTEM. The Journal
of the Polynesian Society, 59(2), 170–190.

Handy, E. S. C., & Pukui, M. K. (1951). The Hawaiian Family System: 3.—The Legendary
Setting. The Journal of the Polynesian Society, 60(1), 66–79.

Kane, E. (1968). Man and Kin in Donegal: A Study of Kinship Functions in a Rural Irish and
an Irish-American Community. Ethnology, 7(3), 245–258.

Apter, A. (1983). In Dispraise of the King: Rituals “Against” Rebellion in South-East Africa.
Man, 18(3), 521–534.

Scribner, B., 1978. Reformation, carnival and the world turned upside‐down. Social History,
3(3), pp.303-329.

Lachmann, R., Eshelman, R., & Davis, M. (1988). Bakhtin and Carnival: Culture as Counter-
Culture. Cultural Critique, 11, 115–152.

Needham, R. (1967). Right and Left in Nyoro Symbolic Classification. Africa: Journal of the
International African Institute, 37(4), 425–452.
Pandian, J. (2001). Symbolic Inversions. An Interpretation of Contrary Behavior in Ritual.
Anthropos, 96(2), 557–562.

MacCarthy, M. (2012), Playing Politics with Yams: Food Security in the Trobriand Islands of
Papua New Guinea. CAFÉ, 34: 136-147. 

Mosko, M. S. (2009). The Fractal Yam: Botanical Imagery and Human Agency in the
Trobriands. The Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute, 15(4), 679–700.