Anda di halaman 1dari 22

Kwoma Terminology and Marriage Alliance: The 'Omaha' Problem Revisited

Author(s): Ross Bowden


Source: Man, New Series, Vol. 18, No. 4 (Dec., 1983), pp. 745-765
Published by: Royal Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2801906
Accessed: 24-02-2016 13:14 UTC

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.

Wiley and Royal Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve
and extend access to Man.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 130.240.43.43 on Wed, 24 Feb 2016 13:14:10 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
KWOMA TERMINOLOGY AND MARRIAGE
ALLIANCE: THE'OMAHA' PROBLEM REVISITED

Ross BOWDEN
La TrobeUniversity

'Omaha' relationship terminologies, defined by the cross-generational merging of members of


MB's patriline, have long been the subject of comparative and theoretical enquiries in anthropol-
ogy. This article outlines a new approach to the study of 'Omaha' classifications by undertaking
an analysis of the structure and social context of a single terminology displaying patrilineal
equations. It is argued that cross-generational mergings in the terminology ofthe Kwoma ofPapua
New Guinea can best be understood in terms of the structure of the enduring (cross-
generational) alliances between groups that arise out marriage. The interpretation developed here
differs from existing approaches to Omaha classifications, and from 'alliance' theories
generally, principally in that it applies to a society lacking positive marriage rules.

Relationship terminologies of the so-called 'Omaha' type represent an old and


intractable problem in kinship studies. Defined conventionally by the cross-
generational merging of members of mother's brother's patriline (MB = MBS,
M = MBD), terminologies of this celebrated and controversial type have been
regarded as so 'different' and 'exotic' (Buchler & Selby I968: 276) -overriding
as they do the 'inherent' distinction between genealogical levels-that they call
for special explanation. Numerous and opposing theories have been advanced in
relation to them. Radcliffe-Brown argued that terminologies exhibiting patri-
lineal equations should be viewed as expressions of a general principle of social
structure that he called the 'unity of the lineage group'. Under this principle,
members of strongly corporate patrilinealdescent groups, though differentiated
in status when seen from within, present a unity when seen from without. Thus,
patrilineages to which one is linked by birth but which are not one's own will
tend to be viewed in their external unitary aspect. One expression of this is the
use of common kin terms for members of such groups. This structuralprinciple
of the unity of the lineage, he argued, 'is not a hypothetical cause of the
terminology. It is a principle that is directly discoverable by comparative
analysis of systems of this type' (Radcliffe-Brown I965: 75; cf. Barnes 1975:
55-6; McKinley I97ia: 237, 246). Murdock, on the other hand, rejected
Radcliffe-Brown's principle of the unity of the lineage group as a mere
'verbalisation' reified into a 'causal force' (I965: I21), and located the social basis
of patrilineal equations in a combination of patrilineal descent and patrilocal
residence. When a rule of patrilocal residence is combined with a 'fully de-
veloped' form of patrilineal organisation, Murdock argued, there will be a
tendency to merg;emembers of other (such as mother's) groinqs across aener
Man (N.S.) I8, 745-65

This content downloaded from 130.240.43.43 on Wed, 24 Feb 2016 13:14:10 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
746 ROSS BOWDEN

ation lines. This tendency is based on the principle of 'immateriality': the


'negative similarity resulting from the functional unimportance of the relatives of
two kin-types, whereby a sufficient basis for differentiating them is lacking'
(i965: 136, my emphasis, cf. Hogbin & Wedgwood I953: 248-9; Tax I955;
Buchler & Selby i968: 247ff.; McKinley Ig7ia; 197Ib; Lounsbury i964; Barnes
1975; Keesing 1975: 112-20). Other writers have attempted to explain cross-
generational equations by reference to various forms of marriage, usually in
association with other institutional variables (for example, Kohler I975; Gifford
I9I6; Lane & Lane i959; Eyde & Postal i96i; Moore i963); by transformational
analysis (e.g. Lounsbury i964); or dispersed affinal alliance (McKinley 197 ib; cf.
Barnes I976; see also Levi-Strauss i966; i969: xxxv-xlii; Heritier i98i).
Given the care and attention that has been lavished on the subject of Omaha
terminologies, we could expect, as Barnes has remarked, that in this areaat least
we should have arrived at a point of advanced understanding; 'here, if any-
where, social anthropology should be able to point to a secure store of analytic
and theoretical accomplishments' (I975: i). Yet perplexingly, as the same writer
has observed, the successful issue from all this labour appears to have remained
in abeyance. There is little agreement about the social relevance (if any) of such
terminologies, the institutional variables with which they are associated, or even
whether they constitute a discriminable class in any analytically significant sense
of the term. Indeed, in the opinion of one authority 'nothing of any real
elucidatory value has come out of all this attention', 'there exists no useful
generalisation about this factitious class of terminologies', and there 'really is no
such thing as an Omaha terminology, except that of the Omaha themselves, and
it leads only to confusion and wrong conclusions to suppose that there is'
(Needham 197I: I4). In Levi-Strauss's view, moreover, Omaha kinship systems
pose a problem 'which blocks entirely the path ahead of us, and all the more so as
its very nature has never been properly understood' (I966: i8).
It is not my intention to develop a new 'theory' of Omaha terminologies.
Such an enterprise, in any case, would be misdirected since recent comparative
and critical research suggests that the terminological equation MB = MBS (or
M = MBD) by which the Omaha type is minimally defined is not systematically
associated with other terminological or institutional variables (Needham I969:
I64 sq.; 1971: I4 sq.; cf. Ackerman1976; WilliamsonI980). Rather,the aimis to
suggest a new approach to the study of terminologies characterised by patri-
lineal equations through undertaking an analysis of the structure and social
context of one such terminology: that of the Kwoma of the East Sepik Province
of Papua New Guinea (table i). Briefly, I propose to argue that the distinctive
and 'problematic' cross-generational mergings in the Kwoma terminology can
best be understood in terms of the structure of the enduring (cross-generational)
alliances between groups that arise out of marriage. In Kwoma society these
alliances are 'made manifest', to use McKinley's term (I97ib: 4I2), in enduring
asymmetrical exchange relationships, involving food, wealth-objects and a
variety of domestic, social and political services, between the male members of
wife-giving and wife-taking patrilines. To the extent that these cross-
generational mergings can be correlated with and be seen to conceptualise the
structure of enduring affinal exchange relationships, I would argue that these

This content downloaded from 130.240.43.43 on Wed, 24 Feb 2016 13:14:10 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
ROSS BOWDEN 747

TABLE I. kwoma relationship terms.


Terms of address, where they differ from terms of reference, are given in brackets.
I. apok [epi] F, FB, FFBS, MZH
apalaka FeB, MeZH
amoy FyB, MyZH
2. nowkwapa[awi] M, MZ, MBD, MBSD, MBSSD, FBW
nawalaka MeZ, FeBW
amoy MyZ, FyBW
3. laka (m.s.) eB, FeBS, eBW, WeZ; (f.s.) eZ, eZH, HeB
4. kumoy (m.s.) yB, FyBS, yBW, WyZ; (f.s.) yZ, yZH, HyB
5. mowoy (m.s. only) Z, FBD, ZH, MZD, MZDH
6. miidiila (f.s. only) B, FBS, MZS
7. yikapa S, D; (m.s.) BS, BD; (f.s.) ZS, ZD, FZS, FZD
8. narem SW, ZSW; (m.s.) BSW; (f.s.) HZSW
9. nyijokw DH; (m.s.) BDH; If.s.) ZDH, FZDH
Io. yekim (m.s.) WBW; (f.s.) BW, BSW
ii. nibel (m.s. only) WB
I2. yakw FZ, FFZ, FFFZ, FZH, FFZH*, FFFZH; (f.s.) HZ, HZH
I3. nel (m.s.) WBS, WBD, WBSS, WBSD;
(f.s.) BS, BD, BSS, BSD
I4. magwapa[mem] MB, MBS, MBSS, MBSSS
i5. wapok[wop] MBW, MBSW, MBSSW, MBSSSW
I6. ruwey (m.s.) ZS, ZD, FZS, FZD; (f.s.) HZS, HZD, HFZS, HFZD
I7. ma H
I8. mima W
I9. yey FF, FFB, FM, FMZ, FMB, FMBC, FMBSC, FMBSSC, FMBW,
FMZH; (f. s.) HF, HM
20. atokw [ach] MF, MFB, MM, MMB, MFBW, MMZH, WF, WM
2I. walaga FFF, FFM, FMF, FMM, MFF, MFM, MMF, MMM, FFMB, FFMBC,
FFMBSC, FFMBSSC, FFMBSSSC
22. nyija SC, DC, ZSC, ZDC; (m.s.) ZDH; (f.s.) HZDH
23. nyijasob SSS, SSD, SDS, SDD, ZSSD, ZSSS, FZSSS, FZSSD
24. nariiboy 'friend'; (f.s.) co-wife
* Some informants gave gul (recip. nel) as an alternative for FFZ and FFZH.

features should be viewed as an expression of marriage alliance.


It is beyond the scope of this article to consider whether this interpretation
would be applicable to other terminologies possessing cross-generational equa-
tions. However, my own research on the Sepik, together with published
material on other Sepik societies (e.g. Forge I97I; Pouwer I964; Rehburg 1974)
suggests that an essentially similar 'alliance' approach could easily be demon-
strated to be suitable to the analysis of at least a number of other terminologies
from the same region. 1
The alliance model of Kwoma terminology and marriage developed here
differs in a number of important ways from existing theories of 'Omaha'
classifications (although it could be shown that it is not necessarily incompatible
with many of the theories in this area). In contrast to the 'unity of the lineage
group' and 'unity of the residence group approaches, my argument places the
emphasis as much on the structure of inter-grouprelationships as on the internal
structure and composition of groups. It also differs in one fundamental respect
from alliance models developed by such writers as Levi-Strauss (i966; I969),
Dumont (I9S3; 1957) and Needham (I960). For them, 'alliance' models of
terminology and marriage apply most suitably, or exclusively, to societies in
which marriage is regularly repeated, by means of positive rules, between

This content downloaded from 130.240.43.43 on Wed, 24 Feb 2016 13:14:10 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
748 ROSS BOWDEN

relatively stable wife-giving and wife-taking groups. Thus Dumont remarks 'I
submit that in societies where there are [positive] marriage regulations ...
marriage should be considered as part of a marriage alliance institution running
through generations' (1971: I85; also Buchler & Selby I968: 130, 134). But
where positive marriage rules are lacking, alliance models are thought to be less
appropriate and inapplicable (I968: 134). Now Kwoma, like most other Papua
New Guinea societies (see Forge 1971: 139), do not possess positive marriage
rules, and do not regularly repeat marriages, symmetrically or asymmetrically,
between 'wife-giving' and 'wife-taking' groups. For this reason (Cook I969:
114), few anthropologists have attempted to approach New Guinea societies
with alliance models in mind. Moreover, Kwoma formally prohibit the rep-
etition of marriages, symmetrically or asymmetrically, between affinally linked
patrilines (but not exogamous clans as wholes) for several generations once a
marriage has been contracted. The effect of this is that affinal ties are widely
dispersed, rather than concentrated, between groups. The absence of positive
rules notwithstanding, however, I will argue that individualKwoma marriages
can be seen to establish enduring alliances between affinally linked patrilines
(even though no further marriages may take place between them for several
generati,ons), and that the structure of these alliances is conceptualised in the
cross-generational mergings in the terminology.

The Kwoma are a non-Austronesian or Papuan-speaking population (Wurm


1975) numbering 2000 who live in the Washkuk Hills, a densely-forested range
of low mountains located immediately to the north of the Sepik, 250 river-miles
west of its mouth (Whiting & Reed 193 8-9; Whiting 1941). Their name literally
means 'hill people' (kwow, hill; ma, people), and is the term the group uses to
distinguish itself from riverine and swamp-dwelling neighbours. The Kwoma
economy is based on sago; this staple (which grows wild) is supplemented by a
variety of crops cultivated by the bush-fallow technique-principally yam, taro
and bananas. Animal protein is provided by fish, obtained locally from shallow
mountain streams and nearby lagoons and by way of trade for sago and other
vegetable produce from people living along the Sepik.
There are four territorially-discrete, politically autonomous tribes (magwil)2:
the Hongwama, Koriyasi, Urambanj and Tongwinjamb. Each tribe is com-
posed of a large number of small, named, totemic, patrilineal and patrilocal
exogamous clans (which Kwoma also refer to as magwil). I lack precise data on
the total number of clans, but the Hongwama tribe, in which I conducted the
bulk of my fieldwork, contains twenty-four. These range in size from one to
twenty-nine married male members; on average they contain six.
Clans, rather than tribes, are basic social and political units. Each clan
corporately and independently owns land and manages it in its own interests;
builds-or is entitled to build-its own men's house (korob) and sponsors
performances of rituals in it (which members of a tribe as a whole attend); settles
disputes among its own members; and organises the puberty, marriage and
death payments for which its male members are liable. Traditionally (before

This content downloaded from 130.240.43.43 on Wed, 24 Feb 2016 13:14:10 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
ROSS BOWDEN 749

1940), clans also acted largely independently in war. A single clan could, and
commonly did, carry out raids against enemy groups without warning the other
clans in its own tribe, and occasionally a clan might avenge an injury by another
within the same tribe by getting an enemy group to attack the clan in question.
Warfaredid not take place between clans in the same tribe, but such groups were
(and still are) widely believed to practise homicidal sorcery against one another,
and men openly describe the members of all clans other than their own,
including those in the same tribe, as 'enemies' (ow).
Clans that possess the same, or similar, sets of totems make up named,
dispersed, non-exogamous totemic divisions. Membership in these divisions,
combined with membership in localised clans, provides the broadest
framework for determining the application of kin terms. For instance, a person
refers to all first ascending generation male members of his (or her) own totemic
division as 'father' (apok), irrespective of the presence or absence of actual or
putative agnatic ties between ego and alter. Similarly, a male speaker refers to all
same-generation natal female members of his own totemic division as 'sisters'
(mowoy),irrespective of the presence or absence of actual or putative agnatic ties
between ego and the females in question. Kin categories such as apok ('F') and
mowoy('Z') can be qualified on the basis of clan membership by the terms siikiin
and nobo,which mean 'true' (or 'actual')and 'classificatory' respectively. Thus, a
man refers to all first ascending generation male members of his own clan as
'true fathers' (apoksiikiin), and to equivalent-generation male members of other
clans in the same division as 'classificatory fathers' (noboapok). Again, a man
refers to all same-generation natal female members of his own clan as 'true
sisters' (mowoy siikiin), and to all equivalent-generation female members of
other clans in the same division as 'classificatory sisters' (nobo mowoy). In
conversation, people occasionally restrict such terms as apoksiikiin ('true father')
and mowoysiikiin ('true sister') to actualfather and actual sister. But all agree that
such terms properly refer to members of clans as wholes (of appropriate
genealogical levels), and not to specific individuals. Thus mowoysiikiin properly
refers to all same-generation natal female members of one's own clan, and
not, primarily, actual sister. Actual sister, in fact, is not terminologically
distinguished from other same-generation clanswomen.3
All fertile marriages establish asymmetrical exchange relationships, and
wider social and political alliances, between the male members of wife-giving
and wife-taking patrilines that endure for up to four generations (fig. i; cf. Gell
1975: 69 sq.; Lewis 1975: 27 sq.; I980: 90 sq.). In what I refer to here as the first
generation of an affinal alliance, a formal (i.e. obligatory) asymmetrical ex-
change relationship obtains between the husband (the wife-taker) on the one
hand, and male members of the wife's brother's (the wife-giver's) patriline of the
wife's brother'sgenerationand below on the other. In the second generation an
identical formal asymmetrical exchange relationship and wider alliance obtains
between the, wife-taker's sons (initially the children of both sex) on the one
hand, and the same male members of the wife-giving line on the other. In the
third and fourth generations a similar but informal (i.e. optional) relationship
obtains between the wife-taker's son's sons, and son's son's sons, respectively
on the one hand, and the surviving male members of the same wife-giving line

This content downloaded from 130.240.43.43 on Wed, 24 Feb 2016 13:14:10 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
750 ROSS BOWDEN

on the other. In all four generations the alliance is underpinned and maintained
by an asymmetrical exchange of food and wealth-objects-food going to
members of the wife-taking line, and wealth to the wife-giving line-and a
symmetrical exchange of various domestic, social and political services. For the
duration of an alliance, furthermore, no additional marriages may take place
between the same two lines. This entails, for male ego, marriage that is
prohibited with a member of WB's (and BWB's), MB's, FMB's and FFMB's
lines, as well as with the husband's sister, daughter, son's daughter, son's son s
daughter and son's son's son's daughter of same and ascending generation
female members of own line (e.g. ZHZ, ZD, FZD, FFZSD).4 It should be
emphasised, however, that these prohibitions apply only to specific descent lines
and not to clans as wholes. Hence a man is formally prohibited from marrying,
say, a member of his MB's patriline (e.g. MBD or MBSD) but is not prohibited
from marrying a more distantly related member ofMB's clan (e.g. MFFBSSD) .'
Before examining the Kwoma terminology, and the way in which it ex-
presses the structure of these alliances, I comment further on the structure of
affinal exchange relationships themselves.

The firstgenerationof an alliance.Kwoma marriages are ideally, and in practice,


patrivirilocal. People say that a marriage takes place when a woman moves to
her intended husband's house and establishes a sexual and domestic relationship
with him. As soon as a marriage commences the husband is required to begin
accumulating shell valuables (ya) to make the bridewealth payment to his wife's
clan. In this he is assisted by his categorically-defined 'true brothers' (same-
generation clansmen), all of whom are formally obliged to contribute to the
payment. His father and other first ascending generation clansmen usually also
contribute to the payment, but unlike his 'true brothers' are not formally
required to do so.6 A bridewealth payment is customarily made in front of the
wife's father's house (that is, the house in which the wife resided before she
married); people say that it 'pays' (tokitow)for the wife's sexual and domestic
services, and legitimises the husband's claim to his children. Until it is made any
children resulting from the union 'belong' to the wife's clan.
The formal recipient of a bridewealth payment is always the wife's brother
(or clan equivalent if the wife has no actual brother of her own). The wife's
brother retains approximately half of the shell valuables received and dis-
tributes the remainder among his c-ategorically-defined 'true brothers' (same-
generation clansmen), all of whom are formally entitled to receive a share of the
wealth. The wife's father, and other first ascending generation male (and female)
members of the wife's clan, receive no share of the marriage payment, and are
explicitly said not to be formally entitled to do so.7
Following a marriage payment the wife's brother (with his father's and other
clansmen's assistance) provides the donors of the wealth with a feast. This is not
described as a return 'payment' of any kind, but is given, people say, simply to
ensure that the donors do not 'go away hungry'. The wife's brother (usually
with his father's assistance) also gives the wife a large and valuable gift of
domestic utensils, known as saga, consisting of all the items (for example, adzes,
net bags and clay cooking pots) that a married woman requires to carry out all

This content downloaded from 130.240.43.43 on Wed, 24 Feb 2016 13:14:10 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
GENERATION TERMS USED BY: A B C
+I ATOKW ATOKW WALAGA
' 4~ (NYIJOKW) (NYIJA) (NYIJA SOB)
o A _ NIBEL MAGWAPA YEY
F (MOWOY) (RUWEY) (NYIJA)
-I B WEALTH G NEL MAGWAPA YEY
(YAKW) (RUWEY) (NYIJA)
ERVICE
-2 C H NEL MAGWAPA YEY
T FOOD I T- (YAKW) (RUWEY) (NYIJA)
-3 D NEL MAGWAPA YEY
(YAKW) (RUWEY) (NYIJA)
-4 E ETC. ETC. ETC.

FIGURE I. Terms of reference used by members of a wife-taking line (A, B, C and D) for m
H, I). Thus, A refers to F as nibel, and G, H, and I as nel. Terms in parentheses

This content downloaded from 130.240.43.43 on Wed, 24 Feb 2016 13:14:10 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
752 ROSS BOWDEN

normal household activities. These, or substitutes if they have been lost or


broken, are eventually returned to the wife's brother, or one of his patrilineal
descendants, as part of the death payment for the wife when she dies.
Although the husband's and wife's fathers are normally implicated in a
bridewealth payment (as donors of wealth, or food and domestic utensils),
Kwoma view marriage payments as transactions between two groups of
'brothers'-the husband and his 'true brothers' (same-generation clansmen) on
the one hand, and the wife's brother and his 'true brothers' on the other. The
husband and wife's brother are the principalsin the transaction since they donate
and receive the major share of the wealth involved. But both groups of brothers
as a whole are implicated in the exchange, since they are either formally obliged
to contribute to the payment or formally entitled to receive a share of it.
A marriage payment does not end the exchange relationship between
brothers-in-law, but initiates an asymmetrical exchange relationship, and wider
alliance, that continues obligatorily for the duration of the marriage. For the
duration of the marriage, for instance, the wife's brother is obliged to 'look after'
(aboboyhawalit. 'feed'; aboboyfood; hawa, give) his sister and sister's husband by
frequently visiting them and taking an interest in their welfare, by regularly giv-
ing them gifts of food, and by giving his sister any household objects or per-
sonal items that she might request. In return for these services the husband is
required periodically to 'pay' (tokitow)the wife's brother with small quantities
of shell valuables (identical to those used in marriage payments). In addition to
asymmetrically exchanging food and wealth, brothers-in-law regularly provide
each other with assistance in such activities as gardening and housebuilding:
services for which the sister's husband 'pays' with additional quantities of shell
valuables, and the wife's brother reciprocates (but does not 'pay') with addit-
ional gifts of food. Traditionally brothers-in-law also acted as allies in war. They
refrained from planning and participating in raids on each other's settlements,
secretly warned each other of impending attacksby their own or other clans, and
provided each other and their families with refuge at isolated bush houses
during, or in the face of, armed hostilities. Brothers-in-law who belonged to the
same tribe were (and still are) expected to support each other in debate in men's
houses, and to protect each other against sorcery by locating a suspected sorcerer
and buying (with shell valuables) the intended victim's leavings from him.
The exchange relationship between brothers-in-law continues obligatorily
until the marriageis terminated by the death of the wife.8 When the wife dies the
husband, assisted by his 'true brothers', makes a final and very large payment of
shell valuables to the wife's brother. This is the death or 'head' (masiik)payment
for a married woman, and it formally terminates the exchange relationship
between brothers-in-law. As in the case of the marriage payment, the wife's
brother retains only approximately half of the valuables received and distributes
the remainder among his categorically-defined 'true brothers', all of whom are
formally entitled to receive a share of the payment.
The exchange relationship that a marriageestablishesbetween the husband and
members of the wife's brother's patriline is terminated only by the death of
the wife, and not by the death of the wife's brother or any other individual male
member of the wife-giving patriline. If a married woman outlives her brother

This content downloaded from 130.240.43.43 on Wed, 24 Feb 2016 13:14:10 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
ROSS BOWDEN 753

(as often happens) the exchange relationship that previously obtained between
her husband and her brother is not brought to an end, but continues obligatorily
for the remainderof the woman'slife between her husband on the one hand and her
brother's son (or clan equivalent if her brother has no son) on the other. At the
wife's brother's-death, that is, the wife's brother's son takes over (inherits) the
wife's brother's role in the exchange relationship. The wife's brother's son is
now formally required to 'look after' the wife and her husband (alter's father's
sister and father's sister's husband) in exactly the same way as his father (the
wife's brother) did before him; he is required regularly to visit them, to give
them gifts of food, and to assist the husband with such activities as gardening
and housebuilding. The husband (the wife-taker) is required periodically to
'pay' (tokitow)for these services with small quantities of shell valuables-just as
he 'paid' the wife's brother while the latter was still alive. Traditionally a wife's
brother's son and father's sister's husband (following the wife's brother's death)
also acted as allies in war. When the wife eventually dies it is now her brother's
son who becomes the formal recipient of the death payment. As his father would
have before him, the wife's brother's son retains approximately half of the shell
valuables received and distributes the remainder among his father's surviving
'true brothers' and his own categorically-defined 'true brothers'. In the event of
a married woman outliving both her brother and brother's son (as occasionally
happens), the wife's brother's (and wife's brother's son's) role in the exchange
relationship is taken over (inherited) in turn by the wife's brother's son's son.
The wife's brother's son's son is now obliged to 'look after' the woman and her
husband (alter's father's father's sister, and father's father's sister's husband) in
the same way as his father (the wife's brother's son) and father's father (the wife's
brother) did before him; and on the wife's death he now becomes the formal
recipient of the woman's death payment (which he shares with his father's
father's, father's and own 'true brothers'). If a married woman outlives her
brother, therefore, her brother's role in the affinal exchange relationship is taken
over by her brother's son, and on the latter's death, by her brother's son's son
andso on downthewife-givingline. Indeed, informants state explicitly that there is
no theoretical limit to the number of descendinggeneration male members of a
wife's brother's patriline who can become involved in an affinal exchange
relationship, since the duration of the alliance is determined not by how long
individual male members of the wife's brother's line live but solely by how long
the wife lives.

The secondgeneration.If no children result from a marriage the asymmetrical


exchange relationship, and wider alliance, between the husband's and wife's
brother's patrilines comes to an end. If children have resulted from the union,
however, an asymmetrical exchange relationship, and wider alliance, identicalto
thatwhichobtainsbetweenbrothers-in-law is established between the wife's brother
on the one hand, and her children on the other. This is the so-called 'avunculate'
or mother's brother/sister's child relationship, and represents what I refer to
here as the second generation of an affinal alliance.
Following the birth of a woman's children, the woman's brother (the
mother's brother) is obligated to 'look after' his sister's children in the same way

This content downloaded from 130.240.43.43 on Wed, 24 Feb 2016 13:14:10 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
754 ROSS BOWDEN

as he looks after their parents. He is required regularly to visit them, to give


them gifts of food, and to provide them with any personal or household items
they might request (including, nowadays, transistor radios and European
clothes). In return, the sister's children (or their father on their behalf while they
are young) are required periodically to 'pay' (tokitow)the mother's brother with
small quantities of shell valuables.
When the oldest sister's child (male or female) reaches puberty-the time
when Kwoma traditionally married-the child's father, with the assistance of
other same-generation clansmen, makes the puberty or hadapiyapayment of
shell valuables to the mother's brother (which the latter shares with all his
categorically-defined 'true brothers'). A puberty payment is said to serve two
purposes. First, it represents an additional payment to the mother's brother for
the food and other services he gave his sister's children while they were young.
Second, it terminates or 'buys off' the mother's brother's right to continue to
give food and other services to his sister's daughterfollowing her marriage, and
transfers this right to the girl's brother-the sister's son. Following the sister's
daughter's marriage, therefore, the girl's brother has the exclusive right to
receive ('hold') her bridewealth payment, to 'look after' her throughout her
married life by giving her gifts of food etc. and to receive shell valuables in
return, and eventually to receive her death payment. The mother's brother
receives no share of these payments.9
Although a puberty payment terminates the mother's brother's exchange
rights in his married sister's daughter(s), he nevertheless retains exchange rights
in his sister's son, and continues to 'look after' him for the duration of the sister's
son's life. 1 He continues to visit (and receive visits from) his sister's son, to give
him gifts of food, and, when he reaches adulthood, to assist him with gardening
and housebuilding-services which the sister's son reciprocates. In return for
these services the sister's son is required periodically to 'pay' his mother's
brother with small quantities of shell valuables. Traditionally, a mother's
brother and sister's son would also have acted as allies in war.
The mother's brother/sister's son exchange relationship continues obliga-
torily for the duration of the sister'sson's life. Assuming for the moment that
the mother's brother outlives his sister's son, when the latter dies the deceased's
'true brothers' (with the assistance of other clansmen) make a very large
payment of shell valuables to the mother's brother. This is the death or 'head'
payment for a man (which always goes to the mother's brother's clan) and it
formally terminates the 'mother's brother/sister's son' exchange relationship.
As in the case of the puberty payment, the mother's brother retains only
approximately half of the wealth received and distributes the remainder among
all his categorically-defined 'true brothers'. However, if the mother's brother
dies before his sister's son the exchange relationship, and wider alliance,
between the two lines is not terminated, but continues obligatorily for the
remainderof the sister'sson's life between the latter on the one hand, and the
mother's brother's son (or clan equivalent if the mother's brother has no son) on
the other. The mother's brother's son is now formally obliged to 'look after' the
sister's son (alter's father's sister's son) by regularly giving him gifts of food, by
helping him with gardening and housebuilding and, traditionally, by acting as

This content downloaded from 130.240.43.43 on Wed, 24 Feb 2016 13:14:10 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
ROSS BOWDEN 755

an ally in war. In return for these services the sister's son is required periodically
to 'pay' his mother's brother's son with small quantities of shell valuables-just
as he 'paid' his mother's brother with shell valuables while the latter was still
alive. When the sister's son eventually dies it is now the mother's brother's son
who becomes the formal recipient of the death payment. The mother's brother's
son retains only approximately half of the wealth received, and distributes the
remainder among his father's and his own 'true brothers', all of whom are for-
mally entitled to receive a share of the payment.
In the event of a sister's son outliving both his mother's brother and mother's
brother's son (as occasionally happens) the exchange relationship is again not
terminated, but continues obligatorily between the sister's son on the one hand
and the mother's brother's son's son on the other. The mother's brother's son's
son is now formally obliged to 'look after' the sister's son (alter's father's
father's sister's son) just as his father (the mother's brother's son) and his father's
father (the mother's brother) did before him; and on the sister's son's death it is
he who now becomes the formal recipient of the death payment (which he
shares with his father's father's, father's and own 'true brothers'). In the event of
the sister's son outliving his mother's brother's son's son as well, the latter's role
in the exchange relationship is taken over (inherited) by the mother's brother's
son s son s son in turn, andso on downtheMB'spatriline.Indeed, informants state
emphatically that there is no theoretical limit to the number of descending
generation male members of the mother's brother's patriline who could become
involved in the exchange relationship, since the duration of the alliance is
determined not by how long individual male members of the mother's brother's
line live, but solely by how long the sister's son lives. What begins in the second
generation of an alliance, therefore, as an asymmetrical exchange relationship
between a mother's brother and sister's son, is transformed on the mother's
brother's death into an exchange relationship between a mother's brother's son
and father's sister's son (that is, an exchange relationship between male cross-
cousins or the sons of brothers-in-law); and on the mother's brother's son's
death, into an exchange relationship between a mother's brother's son's son and
father's father's sister's son's son, and so on.

The thirdandfourthgenerations.Following the death of the sister's son, the formal


asymmetrical exchange relationship between the original wife-giving and
wife-taking lines comes to an end. However, a similar, but informal (non-
obligatory) asymmetrical exchange relationship, and wider alliance, may con-
tinue for a further two generations between the same two lines: between a
sister's son's son (ZSS) (C in fig. i) and male members of a father's mother's
brother's (FMB's) patriline in the third generation; and a sister's son's son's son
(ZSSS) (D in fig. i) and male members of a father's father's mother's brother's
(FFMB's) patriline in the fourth. Thus a FMB (or, following his death, his son or
son's son) is informally entitled to give his ZSS small gifts of food, to assist him
with gardening and housebuilding, and, if the latter agrees to co-operate, to
receive periodically small payments of shell valuables in return. Once estab-
lished, such an exchange relationship normally continues for the duration of the
ZSS's life. Similarly, a FFMB (or, following his death, his son or son's son, is

This content downloaded from 130.240.43.43 on Wed, 24 Feb 2016 13:14:10 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
756 ROSS BOWDEN

informally entitled to give his ZSSS small gifts of food and receive small
payments in return. In terms of wealth, however, the exchange relationship in
the third and fourth generations of an allianceis much less important than it is in
the first two generations, for members of a FMB's and FFMB's lines receive no
share of the ZSS's, or ZSSS's, puberty or death payments. These go exclusively
to the subject's MB's patriline.
Following the death of third descending generation male members of the
original wife-taking line (that is, the ZSSS or D in fig. i), all formal and informal
exchange relationships between the two lines come to an end. At this level they
are now said to be 'unrelated' (akiirama), and fourth (and lower) descending
generation members of the wife-taking line employ no relationship terms for
surviving members of the wife-giving line (and vice versa). It is only at this
level, moreover, that a further marriage may take place between the two lines.
Men say that such a marriage should ideally take place in the opposite direction
from the original marriage, to 'balance' the exchange of women between the
two lines.

In all four generations of an alliance the structure of the exchange relationship


that underpins it can be correlated with, and seen to be expressed by, cross-
generational and lateral mergings in the terminology (see fig. i). I restrict the
discussion here primarily to terms used by, and for, males.
In the first generation of an alliance the exchange relationship between a man
and male members of his wife's brother's patriline is defined by two pairs of
terms: nibeland mowoy, and nel and yakw. A man (A in the above figure) refers to
his wife's brother as nibel, and is referred to in turn as mowoy(a term which also
denotes 'sister'). Like the exchange relationship between them, therefore, the
'brother-in-law' terminology is asymmetrical. A man also uses the term nibelto
refer to all other same-generation male members of WB's clan, all of whom
reciprocally refer to ego as mowoy.
The use of a single term for WB and all other same-generation male members
of WB's clan can be correlated with the social fact that all these persons jointly
(but unequally) hold exchange rights in ego's wife, for they are all formally
entitled to receive a share of her marriage and death payments. The wife's
brother is the primary holder of these rights since he is the nominal recipient of
the payments, and always retains the major share for himself. Moreover, nibel
exclusively denotes men who hold such rights, that is, those to whom ego is
formally required to give wealth as a result of his marriage. Reciprocally, mowoy
(that is, 'true mowoy') exclusively denotes men from whom ego is entitled to
receive wealth as the result of his 'sister's' (mowoy)marriages.
Male ego terminologically distinguishes WB from WF, and refers to the latter
as atokw (reciprocal nyiokw). Unlike nibel and mowoy, the terms atokw and
nyijokw do not define an exchange relationship in any context. In no context
is ego formally required to give wealth or food to a person he refers to as
atokw, and in no context is he formally required to give wealth or food to a
person he refers to as nyiokw. The fact that male ego distinguishes WB from

This content downloaded from 130.240.43.43 on Wed, 24 Feb 2016 13:14:10 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
ROSS BOWDEN 757

WF, and refers to the latter by a term that has no implications as far as exchange
rights are concerned, can also be correlated with the structure of an affinal
alliance, since WF, as we have seen, neither holds nor stands to inherit exchange
rights of any kind in ego's wife.
A man refers to his WBS and other descendinggeneration male members of
WB's patriline as nel. A male speaker, that is, cross-generationally merges WBS,
WBSS, WBSSS etc. Since all these persons use a constant reciprocal, a male
speaker also cross-generationally merges FZ, FFZ FFFZ and so on. A man also
uses the term nel to refer to all other male members ofWB's clarnofWBS'sgener-
ation and below, all of whom reciprocally refer to ego as yakw. The use of a
single term cross-generationally for WBS and other descending generation male
members ofWB's patriline can be correlatedwith the social fact that all these per-
sons occupy, actually or potentially, structurallyequivalent roles vis-d-visego in
the exchange relationship that obtains between a man and male members of his
WB's patriline: they either hold, or stand to inherit, identical (primary) ex-
change rights in ego's wife (the exchange rights held initially by WB). Used
cross-generationally for second and lower descending generation male mem-
bers of WB's patriline, there-fore,nel denotes persons who stand to succeed to
the WB's role in the first generation of an affinal exchange relationship. Kwoma
explicitly account for the cross-generational merging of these kin-types in this
way. The use of the same term, nel, for all other second and lower descending
generation male members of WB's clan as a whole can also be correlatedwith the
structure of this exchange relationship, since all persons so denoted similarly
stand to inherit (secondary) exchange rights in ego's wife, namely a right to
receive a (minor) share of her marriage and death payments. Furthermore, used
for second and lower descending generation male members of WB's clan nel (i. e.
'true nel') exclusively denotes men who stand to inherit such rights, primarily or
secondarily. 1
The correlation between the structure of an affinal exchange relationship and
the cross-generational features of the Kwoma terminology is displayed even
more clearly in the second generation of an alliance. Here the exchange
relationship is defined by a single pair of terms: magwapa('MB') and ruwey
('ZS').
A man (B in the figure above) refers to his mother's brother as magwapa,and is
referred to in turn as ruwey.He uses the same term magwapato refer to descending
generation male members of MB's patriline (MBS, MBSS, MBSSS), and also
uses the term to refer to all other equivalent-generation male members of MB's
clan as a whole. All of a man's terminologically-defined magwapareciprocally
refer to ego as ruwey. Magwapatherefore denotes MB, MBS, MBSS, MBSSS
etc., and ruwey denotes ZS, FZS, FFZS etc. The use of this single term,
magwapa,to refer cross-generationally to MB and MB's patrilineal descendants
can be correlated simply and neatly with the structure of the exchange rela-
tionship between a man and the male members of his MB's patriline. MB and
MB's male patrilineal descendants all occupy, actually or potentially, structur-
ally equivalent roles vis-a-visego in this relationship, since they all either hold or
stand to inherit identical (primary) exchange rights in ego. Thus, if ego outlives
his MB, the MBS takes over (inherits) the MB's role in the exchange rela-

This content downloaded from 130.240.43.43 on Wed, 24 Feb 2016 13:14:10 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
758 ROSS BOWDEN

tionship; the MBS is now obliged to 'look after' ego in exactly the same way as
his father (the MB) did before him, and on ego's death becomes the major
recipient of the death payment. Similarly, if ego outlives both his MB and MBS,
the MBSS in turn takes over the MB's (and MBS's) role in the same exchange
relationship; the MBSS is now obliged to 'look after' ego in the same way as his
father (the MBS), and father's father (the MB) did before him, and becomes the
principal recipient of the death payment.
Kwoma explicitly account for the cross-generational merging of MB and
MB's patrilineal descendants in this way. They point out that while the MB is
alive ego refers to his MBS as magwapaakiir, which literally means 'another
MB'. While the MB is alive, the MBS reciprocally refers to ego as sowhapa
ruwey. (I can offer no translation of the term sowhapa.)The point of referring to
the MBS as magwapaakiir, people say, is that on the MB's death, the MBS will
take over the MB's role in the magwapa/ruweyexchange relationship for the
duration of ego's life. When the MB dies, the MBS is no longer referred to as
magwapaakiir, but is simply magwapa(recip. ruwey);but the MBSS in turn is
now referred to as magwapaakiir (recip. sowhaparuwey), indicating that if ego
outlives his MBS as well, the MBSS will take over the MBS's role in the
exchange relationship. On the MBS's death the MBSS is now referredto simply
as magwapa(recip. ruwey), and the MBSSS in turn is referred to as magwapaakiir
(recip. sowhaparuwey), and so on.
For Kwoma, therefore, the cross-generational merging of MB and MB's
male patrilineal descendants expresses the social fact that the latter occupy
structurally equivalent roles to MB in the magwapa/ruwey exchange rela-
tionship, since, irrespective of genealogical level, they all stand to succeed
patrilineally to the social position in the exchange relationship initially occupied
by MB (cf. Lounsbury I964: 3 82-3; Murdock i965: I68-9).
The use of the same term, magwapa,for all other male members of MB's clan
of MB's generation and below can similarly be correlated with the structure of
this exchange relationship, for all persons so denoted likewise either hold, or
stand to inherit, (secondary) exchange rights e.g.-as, in ego, in a share of
ego's puberty and death payments. The term magwapaused cross-generationally
for all male members of MB's clan of MB's generation and below, therefore,
denotes (and denotes exclusively) males who either hold, or stand to inherit,
formal exchange rights in male ego. These rights are held or inherited primarily
by male members of MB's patriline of MB's generation and below, and second-
arily by other equivalent-generation members of MB's clan as a whole. The
term magwapaakiir, used exclusively for male members of MB's patriline of
MBS's generation and below, denotes persons who stand to inherit primary
exchange rights in ego on the death of the current right-holder. 12
Significantly, male ego distinguishes MB from MF, and refers to the latter by
a term, atokw, which, with its reciprocal, nyia, does not define an exchange
relationship in any context. In no context, that is, is ego obliged to give wealth
or food to a person he refers to as atokw, and in no context is he formally
obliged to receive wealth or food from a person he refers to as nyija. This
terminological distinction between MB and MF is again consistent with the
structure of the exchange relationship between a man and members of his MB's

This content downloaded from 130.240.43.43 on Wed, 24 Feb 2016 13:14:10 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
ROSS BOWDEN 759

patriline. Mother's father, as we have seen, neither holds nor inherits exchange
rights of any kind in ego: he does not receive a share of ego's puberty payment;
does not receive a share of his death payment, and is explicitly said not to be
formally entitled to do so. Mother's father, therefore, does not occupy, actually
or potentially, a structurally equivalent role, vis-d-vis ego, to MB or MB's
patrilineal descendants in the exchange relationship. In keeping with this, MF is
terminologically distinguished from MB, and is referredto by a term that has no
implications as far as exchange rights are concerned. Moreover, unlike magwapa
(that is, 'true magwapa'),which refers exclusively to (male) members of MB's
clan, atokw refers generally to all second ascending generation relatives con-
nected through mother (for example, MF, MM, MFZ, MFZH).
The structure of the exchange relationship between a wife-giving and wife-
taking patriline in the third and fourth generations of an alliance can similarly be
correlated with cross-generational mergings in the terminology. For instance,
male ego refers to all male members of FMB's patriline of FMB's generation and
below by a single term: yey (recip. nyija). Thus yey denotes (among other
persons) FMB, FMBS, FMBSS, FMBSSS. The use of a single term for FMB
and FMB's male descendants is consistent with the social fact that all of these
persons occupy structurally equivalent roles vis-d-vis ego in the informal
exchange relationship that obtains between a man and members of his FMB's
patriline of father's mother's brother's generation and below: all these persons
either hold or stand to inherit identical informal exchange rights in ego.
Significantly, ego terminologically distinguishes FMB (yey) from FMF (walaga;
recip. nyijasob). This distinction can be correlated with the social fact that FMF
does not occupy a structurally equivalent role (actually or potentially) to FMB
in this exchange relationship, since FMF neither holds nor stands to inherit any
exchange rights in ego.
Similar observations can be made about terms used for FFMB's patriline.
M;ale ego cross-generationally merges FFMB and FFMB's male patrilineal
descendants irrespective of genealogical level. This merging can be correlated
with the social fact that an identical informal exchange relationship obtains
actually or potentially between a man and male members of his FFMB's patri-
line ofFFMB's generation and below; for the lattereither hold, or stand to inherit,
identical informal exchange rights in ego. Again, it is significant that male
ego distinguishes FFMB from FFMF (for whom ego in fact has no relationship
term); this is consistent with the social fact that FFMF does not occupy a
structurally equivalent role, vis-a-visego, to FFMB in this exchange relationship,
since FFMF neither holds nor stands to inherit any exchange rights in ego. 13

The object of this article has been to demonstrate the way in which an explicit
'alliance' model of terminology and marriage may be used to explicate the
distinctive and 'problematic' cross-generational equations in the Kwoma rela-
tionship terminology. This alliance model differs, however, from models
advanced by such theorists as Levi-Strauss, Dumont and Needham in that it
applies to a society that lacks positive marriage rules: Kwoma do not regularly

This content downloaded from 130.240.43.43 on Wed, 24 Feb 2016 13:14:10 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
760 ROSS BOWDEN

repeat marriages, symmetrically or asymmetrically, between 'wife-giving' and


'wife-taking' groups. Notwithstanding the absence of positive marriage rules, I
argued that individual Kwoma marriages can be viewed as creating enduring
exchange relationships, and wider alliances, between the male members of
wife-giving and wife-taking patrilines, and that the structure of these exchange
relationships can be correlated with, and seen to be expressed by, cross-
generational equations in the terminology.
In this final section I propose to comment further on one aspect of the
terminology that might be regarded as creating a problem for my argument. I
refer to the terms a man uses for members of his WB's line.
We saw earlier that the structure of the exchange relationship between a
wife-giving and wife-taking patriline is isomorphic in all four generations of an
alliance. Thus, if ego's wife outlives her brother, the WB's role in the exchange
relationship is taken over by the WBS, on the WBS's death by the WBSS and so
on, just as, if ego outlives his MB, the MB's role in the continuing alliance is
taken over by the MBS, and on the MBS's death by the MBSS; or, if ego
outlives his FMB, the FMB's role is taken over by the FMBS, and so on. Since
the WB's male descendants stand to succeed, cross-generationally, to the
position that the WB initially occupies in an affinal exchange relationship
(through inheritance of exchange rights in ego's wife), the WB and his male
descendants all occupy, actually or potentially, structurally equivalent roles
vis-d-vis ego in an affinal exchange relationship in the same way as MB and his
male descendants (or FMB and his male descendants etc.) similarly occupy
structurally equivalent roles. However, unlike MB and MB's male descendants
(or FMB and FMB's male descendants) who are terminologically merged, ego
distinguishesbetween WB and the latter's male patrilinealdescendants. Ego refers
to his WB as nibel (recip. mowoy), and refers to WBS, and other descending
generation male members of WB's patriline, as nel (recip. yakw).
In two important respects the terms a man uses for WB's line parallel and are
mirrored by those he uses for MB's, FMB's and FFMB's lines. First, WB is
terminologically distinguished from WF, just as MB is distinguished from MF,
or FMB is distinguished from FMF. This distinction, I argued, is consistent with
the social fact that WF does not occupy a structurally equivalent role, vis-d-vis
ego, to WB in an affinal exchange relationship, since he neither holds nor stands
to inherit any exchange rights in ego's wife. Second, WBS is terminologically
merged with lower generation members of WB's patriline - just as MBS (or
FMBS etc.) is merged with lower generation male members of MB's (or FMB's)
line. Again, this is consistent with the social fact that these persons all occupy,
actually or potentially, structurally equivalent roles vis-d-vis ego in an affinal
exchange relationship. However, unlike MB and MBS, or FMB and FMBS,
WB and WBS are not terminologically merged. This represents something of an
anomaly, for, according to my argument, they could be expectedto be merged.
I am forced to admit that I can offer no structuralexplanation for this feature
of the Kwoma terminology. On comparative grounds the fact that Kwoma
distinguished between WB and WBS would also appearto be anomalous, since
most terminologies characterised by extensive patrilineal equations do merge
these kin-types (Coult I967: 38; McKinley I97Ib: 4I5; Kohler I975: I78-9).

This content downloaded from 130.240.43.43 on Wed, 24 Feb 2016 13:14:10 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
ROSS BOWDEN 76I

This simple terminological distinction, furthermore, completely invalidates


Coult's attempt-at least as far as the Kwoma are concerned-to derive the
structure of terms used for members of MB's patriline from the structure of
terms used for WB's line. Coult (I967: 38) has argued that in 'most, if not all'
Omaha systems terms used by ego for members of MB's patriline will be
found to be in 'point to point correspondence' with terms used by ego's father for
the same patriline (that is father's WB's line).
Having acknowledged that I can offer no structural explanation for this
apparently anomalous feature, I note that Kwoma, in common with most other
Papua New Guinea societies, presently employ not one, but two distinct
relationship terminologies: an indigenous terminology, and one that derives
from Pidgin English. What is of interest about the Kwoma Pidgin English
relationship terminology is that it not only possesses all the distinctive cross-
generational equations found in the indigenous system, but also elimin-
ates this one 'anomalous' feature: in Pidgin WB and WBS are terminologically
merged.
Kwoma use Pidgin English in everday discourse among themselves (in
conjunction with their own language) and with outsiders. In communicating in
Pidgin people use relationship terms that derive from that language. Although

TABLE 2. KwomaPidginEnglishrelationshipterms*.
Pidgin Kwomaequivalents
i. 'mama' (mother) nowkwapa('M')
'wasmama' nowkwapa (F'sco-wife)
'bikpelamama' nawalaka ('MeZ')
'smalmama' amoy('MyZ')
2. 'papa'(father) apok('F')
'bikpelapapa' apalaka('FeB')
'smalpapa' amoy('FyB')
'waspapa' apalakaandamoy(appliedto F'sactual
brothersonly)
3. 'pikinini'(piccaninni) yikapa('C')
4. 'brada'(brother) lakakumoy(m.s. 'B', f.s. 'Z')
'bikpelabrada' laka
'smalbrada' kumoy
5. 'susa'(sister) mowoy(usedfor femalesonly, e.g. m.s. Z)
yakw(usedfor femalesonly, e.g. FZ)
miidiila(f.s. 'B')
6. 'tambu' nibel('WB')
mowoy(usedfor malesonly, e.g. m.s. ZH)
yakw(usedfor malesonly, e.g. FZH,HZH)
nel('WBS')
merntambu' yekim(WBW)
7. 'kanderi'(kindred) magwapa ('MB')
ruwey(e.g. m.s. ZC, HZC)
'mernkanderi' wapok('MBW')
8. 'tumbuna' yey, walaga,atokw,nyija,nyijokw,
nyijasob
9. 'man'(man) ma('H')
io. 'meri' (Mary)t mima('W')
ii. 'pren','poroman'(friend) (friend;[f.s.] co-wife)
nariiboy
* All Pidgintermsareusedforbothaddressandreference.
t In Pidgin 'meri' is the conventional term for woman (as well as wife).

This content downloaded from 130.240.43.43 on Wed, 24 Feb 2016 13:14:10 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
762 ROSS BOWDEN

no studies to my knowledge have been made of Pidgin relationship termin-


ologies in New Guinea, my own research in different Sepik societies indicates
that although the vocabulary of Pidgin English, including Pidgin relationship
terminologies, is basically the same throughout the region, the structures of
Pidgin terminologies vary radically, and vary in keeping with the structures of
the indigenous systems. I illustrate this by reference to Kwoma usage.
As table 2 indicates the Pidgin English relationship terminology contains
eleven basic categories; in addition there are three qualifying terms, meaning
elder ('bikpela'), younger ('smal'), and substitute ('was') respectively. One of
the primary terms (viz. 'meri') can also be used as a qualifier to distinguish
female from male members of certain terminological classes. Nine of the eleven
basic terms, and all three qualifying terms, derive from English, and two (viz.
'tambu' and 'tumbuna') from Oceanic languages (Mihalic I97I). Table 2 lists the
Pidgin terms with their Kwoma equivalents. Terms in parentheses are the
derivations that Mihalic (I 97 I) gives.
Several features of the Pidgin terminology are worth noting. First, it contains
far fewer categories than the indigenous system-less than half. One conse-
quence is that a number of Pidgin categories denote a much wider range of rela-
tives than their indigenous counterparts. For instance, 'tambu' includes
kin-types denoted by five distinct categories in the indigenous terminology;
and 'tumbuna' includes kin-types denoted by six indigenous categories. Second,
although the Pidgin terminology contains far fewer categories than the indigen-
ous system it retains all of its distinctive cross-generational equations. In Pidgin,
for instance, one finds (for a male speaker) the following equations:
(i) MB = MBS = MBSS = MBSSS ('kanderi')
(ii) M = MZ= MBD = MBSD =MBSSD ('mama')
(iii) FMB = FMBS = FMBSS = FMBSSS ('tumbuna')
(iv) FM = FMBD = FMBSD = FMBSSD ('tumbuna')
(v) ZS = FZS = FFZS = FFFZS ('kanderi')
(vi) ZSS = FZSS = FFZSS = FFFZSS ('tumbuna')
(vii) ZSSS = FZSSS = FFZSSS = FFFZSSS ('tumbuna')
Significantly, the Pidgin terminology also retains the indigenous distinctions
between WB ('tambu') and WF ('tumbuna'), and MB ('kanderi') and MF
('tumbuna'). Pidgin terms such as 'tambu' ('WB'), 'kanderi' ('MB') and 'tum-
buna' ('FMB'), furthermore, denote members of clans as wholes(of appropriate
genealogical levels) as do their indigenous counterparts (nibel, magwapaand
yey). Thus 'kanderi' denotes all male members of MB's clan of MB's generation
and below; and 'tumbuna' denotes (among other persons) all male members of
FMB's clan of FMB's generation and below. But in addition to this, table 2 indi-
cates that in Pidgin male ego cross-generationally merges all male members of
WB's patriline (and clan as a whole) of WB's generation and below (that is,
WB = WBS = WBSS = WBSSSetc.). Egoreferstoallofthesepersonsas'tambu'.
Since WB and WB's male descendants all use constant reciprocals, a male
speaker of Pidgin also cross-generationally merges ZH, FZH and FFZH etc.
('tambu'). In the indigenous terminology ZH and FZH are distinguished.
The Pidgin terminology, therefore, retains all of the distinctive cross-
generational features of the indigenous system, and at the same time ignores the
one feature of the indigenous terminology (the distinction between WB and

This content downloaded from 130.240.43.43 on Wed, 24 Feb 2016 13:14:10 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
ROSS BOWDEN 763

WB's male descendants) that, according to my argument, is anomalous. It


might also be noted that in Pidgin certain distinctions are made that are not
found in the indigenous system. For instance, in Pidgin a man distinguishes Z
from ZH ('susa' and 'tambu' respectively), but merges them in Kwoma (both
are referred to, and addressed, as mowoy).
One other striking feature of the Pidgin terminology is that it completely
obliterates asymmetry from the areas of the terminology that have been the
focus of this article: all the terms used to refer cross-generationally to members
of WB's, MB's, FMB's and FFMB's lines are self-reciprocal.Thus, a man
cross-generationally merges MB and MBS ('kanderi'), and uses the same term
to refer to their reciprocals: ZS and FZS ('kanderi'). For a male speaker,
therefore, the term 'kanderi' denotes MB, MBS, MBSS etc. as well as ZS,
FZS, FFZS etc. Similarly, 'tambu' denotes WB, WBS, WBSS etc. as well as ZH,
FZH, FFZH etc.; and 'tumbuna' denotes FMB, FMBS, FMBSS etc. as well as
ZSS, FZSS, FFZSS, and so on. The Pidgin terminology also obliterates
asymmetry from other areasof the indigenous terminology. For instance, in the
indigenous system a person distinguishes between second ascending and second
descending generation members of own patriline; in Pidgin he merges them.
Again, in Kwoma a person distinguishes third ascending and third descending
generation members of own line; in Pidgin he merges them-and merges them
in turn with second generation ascendants and descendants.
For Kwoma the absence of asymmetry in these areas of the Pidgin terminol-
ogy is of little practical concern. If the referent of a term such as 'kanderi' (MB,
ZS) or 'tambu' (WB, ZH) is unclear, people resort either to the indigenous
categories, personal names, or descriptive circumlocutions. The lack of asym-
metry in the Pidgin terminology, however, does raise analytical problems for
writers such as Buchler and Selby (I968: 26I) who take asymmetry to be one of
the diagnostic properties of 'Omaha' terminologies.

NOTES

1 Although Iatmul terminology has figured prominently in several recent discussions of Omaha
classifications (e.g. Ackerman I976; Williamson I980) I exclude reference to it since it differs
markedly in structure from that of the Kwoma-merging alternateratherthan adjacentgenealogical
levels (MB = MBSS, MBS = MBSSS etc.). Iatmul terminology and marriage in any case present
special problems which will be considered elsewhere in a comparative analysis of Sepik social
structure.
2 The orthography adopted for Kwoma words follows that proposed by Kooyers et al. (I97I).
'B', 'd', 'g' and 'j' are all prenasalised and are equivalent to 'mb', 'nd', 'ngg' and 'nj' respectively.
Thus magwil, the Kwoma term for clan, is pronounced 'manggwil' (alt. 'menggwil'). The spelling
of village and tribal names follows that of the Village Directory for I968.
3 There is no ideology that the clans composing a totemic division are related by descent from a
common forebear, totemic or otherwise. Whiting's (I94I: 6) assertion to the contrary is incorrect.
For a more detailed discussion of Kwoma social organisation see Bowden I983: 8-43.
4 Williamson's assertion (I980: 538) that Kwoma have a preferential rule of marriage with a
classificatory FZD (ruwey) is incorrect; so is her claim (and hence the elaborate argument she
constructs on the basis of it) that men reclassify their wives after marriage so that they are said to be
ruwey, whatever their actual relationship prior to marriage (I980: 544). Of the I00 marriages for
which I have detailed genealogical information, 47 involved marriages to terminologically unrelated
women, I8 to classificatory 'sisters' (mainly women from the same totemic divisions as their

This content downloaded from 130.240.43.43 on Wed, 24 Feb 2016 13:14:10 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
764 ROSS BOWDEN
husbands), and the remaining 35 to women from eleven different categories, only four of whom
were classified as ruwey('FZD').
5 Heritier (I98i) advances a model of 'semi-complex' kinship systems, based on field data
collected among the Samo of Upper Volta, intended to apply to all 'Omaha' societies (cf. I980:
I28-3 i). Although the Samo terminology and marriage rules correspond, in certain respects, to
those of the Kwoma, her model is not directly applicable to this society (see also Barnes I982).
Heritier's argument, as well as L6vi-Strauss's in 'The future of kinship studies' to which it is closely
related, will be examined in detail elsewhere.
6 The bulk of the shell valuables the husband himself contributes to his bridewealth payment will

have been given to him by his father when he reached puberty. But he will also have obtained some
by way of trade for sago from people along the Sepik (the traditional source of Kwoma shell
valuables), and some as his share of bridewealth and other payments made for married clan 'sisters'.
Unlike many other Sepik peoples (e.g. Lewis I975: 34) Kwoma still use shell valuables to make
affinal payments, and eschew the use of money.
7 If the wife's brother is immature at the time of his sister's marriage his father may accept his

share of the bridewealth payment on his behalf, and hold it for him until he reaches puberty.
8 If a marriage ends in divorce the exchange relationship between the husband and wife's brother

is brought to an end, but is re-established between the woman's brother and her new husband as
soon as she remarries. Kwoma women of marriageable age never remain unmarried for long
following a divorce. In fact, women only leave their husbands after they have secretly arranged to
marry someone else.
9 If a sister's daughter dies before she marries, her death payment (made by her natal clan) goes to
her mother's brother. The death payment for a married woman, therefore, goes to her brother'sclan,
but for an unmarried girl it goes to her mother'sbrother'sclan.
10 Lewis (I980: 86 sq.) describes a similar arrangement for the West Sepik Gnau.
11 Nel denotes natal female, as well as male members of WB's patriline of WBS's generation and
below. Since these women do not stand to inherit exchange rights in ego's wife, the term nel, unlike
nibel, does not exclusively denote persons who are actually or potentially implicated in an exchange
relationship with ego. Men recognise this, and contextually distinguish between male nel, with
whom they are potentially implicated in an exchange relationship, and female nel, with whom they
are not, by saying of the latter 'They are women', or 'They are female nel'.
12 A female speaker uses the same terms for members of MB's clan as a male speaker uses. For a

never-married girl these terms have the same jural connotations as far as exchange rights are
concerned as they do for a man (marriedor unmarried). However, since a MB loses exchange rights
in his ZD when she marries, for a married woman they have no such connotations.
13 In contrast to the terms nibel ('WB') and magwapa('MB'), yey and walaga do not exclusively

denote persons with whom ego is implicated (actually or potentially) in an exchange relationship,
for they also denote (among other persons) second and third ascending generation male members
respectively of own line (e.g. FF and FFF).

REFERENCES

Ackerman,C. I976. Omahaand'Omaha'.Am.Ethnol.3, 555-72.


Barnes, R. H. I975. Editor's introduction. In On theprehistoryof marriage(by) J. Kohler. Chicago:
Univ. Press.
I976. Dispersed alliance and the prohibition of marriage: reconsideration of McKinley's
explanation of Crow-Omaha terminologies. Man (N.S.) II, 384-99.
I982. Kinship exercises: a review article. Culture2(2), II3-I8.
Bowden, R. I983. Yena:artand ceremonyin a Sepik society.Oxford: Pitt Rivers Museum.
to theoryandmethod.
Buchler, I. R. & H. A. Selby, I968. Kinshipandsocialorganisation:an introduction
New York: Macmillan.
Cook, E. A. I969. Marriage among the Manga. In Pigs, pearlshellsand women:marriagein the New
Guinea highlandsR. M. Glasse & M. J. Meggitt (eds). NewJersey: Prentice Hall.
Coult, A. D. I967. Lineage solidarity, transformational analysis and the meaning of kinship
terminologies. Man (N.S.) 2, 26-47.
Dumont, L. I953. The Dravidian kinship terminology as an expression of marriage. Man 53, 34-9.

This content downloaded from 130.240.43.43 on Wed, 24 Feb 2016 13:14:10 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
ROSS BOWDEN 765

I957. Hierarchyand marriagealliancein South Indiankinship(Occ. Pap. R. anthrop. Inst. I2).


London: Royal Anthropological Institute.
I971. The marriage alliance. In Kinship: selectedreadings(ed.) J. Goody. London: Penguin
Books.
Eyde, D. B. & P. M. Postal I96I. Avunculocality and incest: the development of unilateral
cross-cousin marriage and Crow-Omaha kinship systems. Am. Anthrop.63, 747-7I.
Forge, A. I97I. Marriage and exchange in the Sepik. In Rethinkingkinship and marriage(ed.) R.
Needham (A. S. A. Monogr. II). London: Tavistock Publications.
Gell, A. I975. Metamorphosisof the cassowaries(Lond. Sch. Econ. Monogr. social Anthrop. 51).
London: The Athlone Press.
Gifford, E. W. I9I6. Miwok moieties. Univ. Calif. Publ. Am. Archeol.Ethnol. 12, I39-94.
H6ritier, F. I98I. L'exercicede laparente.Paris: Gallimard, Le Seuil.
Hogbin, H. I. & C. Wedgwood I953. Local grouping in Melanesia. Oceania23, 24I-76; 24, 58-76.
Keesing, R. M. I975. Kin groupsandsocialstructure.New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
Kohler, J. I975. On theprehistoryof marriagetrans., ed. R. H. Barnes. Chicago: Chicago Univ Press.
First published I897.
Kooyers, O., M. Kooyers & D. Bee I97I. Phonemes of Washkuk (Kwoma). Te Reo 14, 37-4I.
Lane, R. & B. Lane I959. On the development of Dakota-Iroquois and Crow-Omaha kinship
terminologies. S West.J. Anthrop.I5, 254-65.
Levi-Strauss, C. I966. The future of kinship studies. Proc. R. anthrop.Inst. 1965,
I969. The elementarystructuresof kinship(trans. Bell, Sturmer & Needham). London: Eyre &
Spottiswoode.
Lewis, G. I975. Knowledgeof illnessin a Sepiksociety(Lond. Sch. Econ. Monogr. social Anthrop. 52).
London: The Athlone Press.
I980. Day of shiningred. Cambridge: Univ. Press.
Lounsbury, F. G. I964. A formal account of Crow- and Omaha-type terminologies. In Explorations
in culturalanthropology(ed.) W. Goodenough. New York: McGraw Hill.
McKinley, R. I97Ia. A critique of the reflectionist theory of kinship terminology: the Crow/
Omaha case. Man (N.S.) 6, 228-47.
I97Ib. Why do Crow and Omaha terminologies exist? Man (N.S.) 6, 408-26.
Mihalic, F. I97I. TheJacarandadictionaryandgrammarof MelanesianPidgin. Melbourne: Jacaranda
Press.
Moore, S. F. I963. Oblique and asymmetrical cross-cousin marriage and Crow-Omaha termin-
ology. Am. Anthrop.65, 296-3 I2.
Murdock, G. P. I965. Socialstructure(Free Press paperback edition). New York: The Free Press.
Needham, R. I960. Alliance and classification among the Lamet. Sociologus(N. S.) I0, 97-II9.
I969. Gurage social classification: formal notes on an unusual system. Africa39, I53-66.
I97I. Remarks on the analysis of kinship and marriage. In Rethinkingkinshipand marriage
(ed.) R. Needham (A.S.A. Monogr. II). London: Tavistock Publications.
Pouwer, J. I964. A social system in the StarMountains: towards a reorientation of the study of social
systems. In New Guinea:thecentralhighlands(ed.)J. B. Watson. Menasha: American Anthropo-
logical Association.
Radcliffe-Brown, A. R. I965. Structureandfunctioninprimitivesociety.London: Cohen & West.
Rehburg, J. I974. Social structure of the Sepik Iwam. In E. D. Shaw (ed.) Kinshipstudiesin Papua
New Guinea (ed.) E. D. Shaw. Ukarumpa: Summer Institute of Linguistics.
Tax, S. I955. The social organisation of the Fox Indians. In Social anthropologyof North American
Indiantribes(ed.) F. Eggan. Enlarged edition. Chicago: Univ. Press.
Village Directory I968. Department of District Administration, Port Moresby (Papua New
Guinea).
Whiting, J. W. M. I94I. Becominga Kwoma. New Haven: Yale Univ. Press.
& S. W. Reed I93 8-9. Kwoma culture: report on field work in the Mandated Territory of
New Guinea. Oceania9, I70-2I6.
Williamson, M. H. I980. Omaha terminology and unilateral marriage on the Sepik. Am. Ethnol. 7,
530-48.
Wurm, S. A. (ed.) I975. New GuineaArea LanguagesandLanguageStudy. Vol. 1. PapuanLanguages
and theNew Guinea linguisticscene.Canberra:Pacific Linguistics C3 8.

This content downloaded from 130.240.43.43 on Wed, 24 Feb 2016 13:14:10 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Anda mungkin juga menyukai