Sided with Omaha but no Twist: Three Logics of Alyawarra Kinship

1
Sided with Omaha but no TwistThree Logics of
Alyawarra Kinship

• Woodrow W. Denham, American University, Dubai,
  wdenham_at_ncia.net U. A. E.

• Douglas R. White, University of California,
  Irvine drwhite_at_uci.edu U.S.A.

Cultural Structures and Distributed
CognitionSession 2 Ethnographic Cases for
Potential Formalization. Cultural Structures and
Distributed CognitionChair Dwight
Read Anthropological Sciences Meeting, New
Orleans 2002 Friday 130-145
2
Air photo of Gurlanda Camp 1972.
3
The Fieldwork Experiment

• This paper derives from an experiment in
  quantitatively oriented fieldwork conducted by
  Denham in Central Australia thirty years ago.
• The experiment was designed explicitly to explore
  differences between what Aborigines actually did
  and what they said they did when anthropologists
  interviewed them.
• The attempt to discover what they did rested on
  observing and recording their activities, then
  using computers to seek and extract patterns in
  the coded data that would not have appeared in
  traditional ethnographic data.

4
Domestic activities.
5
Denham fieldwork 71-2 data

•        File26-27 Observation distribution
  records
•        File28-78 Behavior Observations - 41,809
  records of numerically coded data derived from
  200 hours of observations spanning 86 days
•        Documents - 500 pages of field notes and
  historical letters
•        Photographs - 217 portraits, 90 BW
  prints, 230 color slides, 7 air photos
•        Other graphics - 3 Alyawarra Territory
  Dreaming maps,17 camp maps, 12 residence plans,
  30 sketches
•        Genealogical diagrams containing all
  people belonging to the 17 countries represented
  in the research population
•        Audio recordings - 14 hours raw, 77
  minutes edited

•        File01 Genealogies and vital statistics -
  377 records one focus here
•        File02 Census data - 264 records
•        File03-20 digitized maps of 17 Alyawarra
  camps
•        File21 Meteorological records - 146 days
•        File22 Kinship term applications - 104
  egos x 225 alters 23,400 applications the
  other focus here
•        File23 Sleeping Group Compositions - 162
  records
•        File24 Residential Group Compositions -
  258 records
•       File25 Task Group Compositions - 2490
  records

6
Some members of the research population.
7
Alyawarra fieldwork one of the methods used is
Photodeck Cards for data collection on kin-term
usage
This persons use of kinship terms for
others numbered 1-225 is recorded here while they
view other cards containing each alters
photograph as mounted on alters card in the area
indicated by the arrow
8
Our reanalysis

• Our new analysis examines the kin-term usage data
  elicited with the Photodeck cards on each of 104
  egos x 225 alters, in relation to a
• network analysis of regular equivalence in
  marriage patterns between lineages using the
  genealogical and marriage data on all 264
  individuals in the region studied, plus 113
  ancestors. Lineages are treated as
  regular-equivalent if they have equivalent
  relations to equivalent sets of other lineages
  (White and Reitz 1983).
• We examined these data in the light of discrepant
  logics noted by Denham, Chad McDaniel, and John
  Atkins (1979) in Aranda and Alyawarra Kinship A
  Quantitative Argument for a Double Helix Model.
  American Ethnologist 6(1)1-24.

9
The original and new results an overview

• Denham, McDaniel, and Atkins (1979) found
  evidence for a Cultural Model of the Alyawarra
  (and Aranda) kinship system as one where
• generational times were 50 longer for males than
  for females,
• but the discrepancies of actual kin term usage
  and this model were about 23,
• some of which was due to use of Omaha terms that
  merged generations, and some to nonreciprocal use
  of terms.
• We reevaluate these discrepancies by
• a network analysis of equivalence classes in
  marriage behavior,
• locating the discrepancies in kin-term usage
  within the kinship network, and
• deriving an analysis of the different
  logics-in-play from this evidence

10
Four Logics Operative in Alyawarra Kinship
Summarized  
Denham et al. 1979 p. 12 for row 2, overall
fit p. 10 for row 4, where we find a potential W
is often equated with M, and a WB with MB (the
Omaha pattern of terminology). A sided marriage
network is one in which marriages can be
classified into two supersets such that parents
of bride and groom tend to come from opposite
sides. A viri- or uxori-sided network is one that
is sided, with sidedness respectively assigned to
males by patrilineal inheritance, or to females
by matrilineal inheritance. The Alyawarra are a
case in which both tendencies exist, i.e., the
marriage network is both viri- and uxori-sided
(Houseman 1997).
11
Logic0 Tetradic rules for (four-) named marriage
sections are constituted by three local
principles of equivalence classes amongst
relatives, plus a proviso that the rules apply
uniformly

Triangles -male sibling equivalence classes
Circles - female sibling equivalence classes
Marriage

• 1. Equivalence of siblings but nonequivalence of
  cross-cousins.
• 2. Equivalence of alternating generations in male
  and female lines.
• 3. Marriage cannot take place between those of
  the same equivalence class.
• 4. All rules apply uniformly, and uniformly to
  equivalence classes (if the brothers in an
  equivalence class marry into another such class,
  then so do the sisters, and vice versa).
• Note that these might well be rules that hold for
  all four-section systems.

12
Tetradic Logic0 (e.g., Section Memberships)
Egocentric
1 2 3 4 5
6 Kamara Pityara
Kamara   7 8 9 10
11 12  Burla Ngwariya
Burla   13 14 15
16 17 18   Kamara Pityara
Kamara Pityara
Solid lines assign relative equivalence classes
both by descent rules (patrilines, matrilines)
and by affinity (marriage). The equivalence
classes would hold from the perspectives of
sibling sets 1/2, 9/10, and 17/18, . Dotted lines
show the variety of equivalence classes to which
children might be assigned for women in
equivalence class 4. Alyawarra section names are
Kamara, Pityara, Burla and Ngwariya
13
Section Rules (Logic0) Neither Genealogical nor
Static

• More general than kinship section rules are also
  used in ceremonials, beyond kinship proper
• Based on an equivalence-class logic that applies
  to but is not subsumed by genealogical
  relationships
• Anthropological models of sections often infer
  marriage patterns from equivalence-class logics
  as if the genealogical marriage rules were
  implied by these rules when in fact they are not.
• Kinship terminologies often fit the section logic
  and again are often used by anthropologists to
  imply marriage rules that do not in fact match
  actual behavior.
• Classificatory kinship terminologies consistent
  with sections require careful consideration of
  equivalence-classes among complex bundles of
  genealogical relationships.

14
Ceremonial activities.
15
Kinship Dynamics of Sections Historically, 0 to
4 to 8, in 30 years

• The four-section system of Logic0 was probably
  adopted by the Alyawarra in the 1850s from a
  society just to the west, at the same time as is
  documented for their Aranda neighbors.
• Ditto for an eight-subsection variant of that
  system, which was adopted by the Northern Aranda
  in the 1880s. What we call Logic1 Models of the
  Kin Term System includes Radcliffe-Browns model
  of this system.
• The Northern Aranda have eight named subsections,
  while only four sections are named among the
  Alyawarra, with eight unnamed subsections
  implicit in the kinship terminology

16
Octadic Logic0 Tetradic Logic0 extended to 8
subsections
Modified
2Burla
Original
Historically, ca. 1880 each of the sections
was divided into two, so that, to a Ngwariya
man, for example, only half of the Burla women
were eligible as wives, the other half being
Unkulla or forbidden to them (Spencer and Gillen
1927320-322).
17
Octadic Logic0 provides a basis for a complete
inventory of fit not only to the implicit
eight-subsection groupings implied by informants
designations of their first choice in appropriate
usage of kinship terms applied to specific
alters, but also

•   Where and to what extent do violations of
  subsection logic correspond to irregularities in
  the network patterns of Logic2
•   To what extent usages are systematically
  non-reciprocal (i.e., not merely as a result of
  the elicitation methods) given both the network
  and subsection framing of Logic2
•   Where precisely and exhaustively Omaha terms
  are employed in Logic3
•   These questions will be the subject of a
  separate article.  Meanwhile, partial answers are
  provided by our network analysis.

18
Anthropological Fictions and Generalizations
(Logic1)
Artificial closure of equivalence class marriage
rules in Radcliffe-Browns Kariera model one
of repeated sister exchange
Artificial closure of equivalence class marriage
rules in R-Bs Aranda model sister exchange
in alternate generations
From Logic1 ? Logic2, open format one of many
possibilities, (Denham et al., 1979 and Tjon Sie
Fat 1981, 1983)
19
Logic1, but a false image Kin terms fit R-Bs
8-subsection Cultural Model of normative
Alyawarra and Northern Aranda kinship
(Aranda-type). A good fit of model and
terminology but not to behavior the Alyawarra
have no sister exchanges, etc.
20
Other Generalizations of Logic1 ? Logic2
Network Models of Kinship Organization, attuned
to age differences and strategies
Logic2 is a Logic1 kin-term pattern, but now
analyzed in relation to social (network)
organization, not just the kin-term pattern alone
21
Logic2? The Open Format proposed by Denham et
al. (1979)
Red matrilines
Key Assuming that ego is in section K, then
K,P,B,N are section designations and K1,K2,
through N1,N2 are implicit 8-subsection
designations. A 1, A 2, B 1, B 2, C 1, C 2, D 1
and D 2 are distinct kin terms consistent with 8
implicit subsections.
22
To see if Denham et al.s Logic2 is a network
pattern

• We place Alyawarra lineages into regular
  equivalence classes in a network diagram
  according to whether they have equivalent
  relations to equivalent sets of other lineages
  (White and Reitz 1983), using the genealogical
  and marriage data on all 377 individuals.
• Actual patterns of marriage choice, social
  organization, and patterns of alliance then
  emerge as an element of the logic, i.e., a logic
  realized in the context of the social network.
  This is the real-time decision-making
  realization of cultural models, complete with a
  time dimension.
• In the following results, we find the open
  format model of Denham et al. (1979) does fit the
  equivalence-class patterns of actual behavior
  roles in the social network.

23
Logic2 The actual kinship network with social
organization given by regular equivalence
analysis of inter-lineage marriages (key red
mothers, black fathers, lite marriages
)
key
Nall 377 individuals
Node Colors blue-Kamara, green-Burla,
yellow-Pityara, orange-Ngwariya Node Size
proportional to age (smallest black nodes are
unknown/deceased)
24
Logic2 The actual kinship network and social
organization this time the colors are those of
the languages spoken by individuals
Key to Languages Spoken blue-Aranda,
yellow-Alyawarra , green-in between
25
Logic2 The actual kinship network and social
organization, with a close-up of the network of
Alyawarra speakers
(red and black arrowsmothers, fathers green
linesmarriages)

• 6 (early) red lines correspond to open format
  28 year difference
• 87 red lines correspond to open format 14 year
  difference
• 7 red lines correspond to open format 0 year
  difference

26
Logic3 The actual kinship network, social
organization, showing Omaha usage within the
network of Alyawarre speakers blue
linesmarriage, green linesOmaha terms such as
WM, WBMB, found to be non-reciprocal and to
exclude marriage
Use of Omaha terms excludes possibility of
marriage
27
Difference between the Logics

• The standard interpretation of kin-term Logic1
  models of Aranda-type (including Alyawarra)
  kinship (e.g., by R-B and Lévi-Strauss) is that
  of symmetric or direct exchange.
• The actual kinship network, where Logic1 ?
  Logic2, confirms Denham et al.s (1979) open
  format model, one of asymmetric or generalized
  exchange. It has
• No generational closure (no cycles of
  siblings-in-law)
• No algebraic closure (rather there are open-ended
  alliances)
• dynamically open and subject to adjustments
  that follow from marriage strategies (not static
  or locked into prescriptive rules)
• Analysis of signaling in Logic3 is
• Consistent with this dynamic, signaling
  non-marriageable
• Non-reciprocal in use of terms at behavioral level

28
Further, we see these results

• Kinship terminologies are egocentric
• But local rules have implications for the larger
  network structure, a point evident to
  participants e.g., choices as to age of spouse
  co-vary with implications for reciprocity (same
  age) versus asymmetry (large age differences)
• The global network structure is the social
  organizational context in which to evaluate the
  terminologies, cultural models and decision models

as consistent with Reads theory of kinship
terminologies as applied to classificatory kinship
29
And thats a good place to stop
30
(No Transcript)
31
Concluding note on methods

• It is easy to misunderstand the logics of
  equivalence classes in Australian systems.
  Denhams experimental field methods provided a
  different set of understandings of these logics.
• Anthropologists concerned with modeling
  kinship, from R-B to Lévi-Strauss, have inferred
  prescriptive marriage rules from kin terms in
  interpreting their models. Denhams methods also
  permit a network analysis that gives a better
  understanding.
• The Alyawarra case, we think, exemplify the
  underlying dynamics of the adaptive social
  organization that accompanies section systems
  generally. Denhams methods might have benefited
  from interviews on how and when sections and
  subsections were introduced, how the unnamed
  subsections are reckoned, if at all, and
  informants reflections on how they determine the
  Alyawarra way of reckoning the correct kinship
  term for alters.

32
Four Logics Operative in Alyawarra Kinship,
recalled  
Denham et al. 1979 p. 12 for row 2, overall
fit p. 10 for row 4, where we find a potential W
is often equated with M, and a WB with MB (the
Omaha pattern of terminology).
33
A more detailed summary

• In Logic1 the Alyawarra strictly adhere to
  marriage rules and normative kinship terms that
  conform to marriage sections (cross-cutting
  exogamous sides) and unnamed endogamous
  matrimoieties that unify interleaved alternating
  generations.
• In Logic 2, the axiom of generational closure
  that successive sibling-in-law links close into
  cycles in an endogamous group does not apply
  because female age at marriage is significantly
  lower than that of males. The resulting
  extra-normative age bias yields recurrent
  patterns of marriage between patrilineages that
  are much more likely to be asymmetric than
  symmetric (as with sister exchange, for example).
  Patterns of marriage among the deceased are
  quickly forgotten, and no longer cast their
  shadow as a constraint on future behaviors. Thus
  wife-givers and wife-takers may engage in
  exceptional marriages that inflect Logic2
  behaviors into new systemic patterns leading to
  lineage remapping of generations. This allows
  the kinship system to evolve dynamically across
  a class of network models influenced
  stochastically by age distributions at marriage.
  
• In Logic3, the unintended effect of demography
  (HW age differences) is supplemented by
  widespread and intended use of extra-normative
  Omaha terminology as an exclusionary device that
  says, dont marry here, but does so
  nonreciprocally.

34
The field data collected by Denham in 1971-72 are
available in the Group Compositions in Band
Societies archived on-line at http//eclectic.ss.u
ci.edu/drwhite/