Page Banner

Full Text: Anthropos, 69.1974

The Tibagy Kaingang 
differences are more fundamental and numerous than between even the most 
dissimilar of the Kaingang subtribes. 
One effective method of distinguishing between peoples is by comparing 
their relationship terminologies. In Hicks (1971a) I demonstrated that whereas 
the Aweikoma utilize a cognatic terminology those Kaingang living on the 
two Paraná reservations of the Toldo das Lontras and the Posto Indígena do 
Ivaí and those resident on the two Rio Grande do Sul reservations of Nonoai 
and Guarita employ a terminology which is both lineal and two-section - a 
contrast so stark as to demolish any argument for the inclusion of the Duque 
de Caxias subtribe into the category “Kaingang”. 
Because the relationship terminology of other Kaingang groups remained 
to be published, however, only these four subtribes were compared with the 
Duque de Caxias community so it might be claimed that a cognatic set of 
terms remains undiscovered in some poorly documented subtribe. If such 
information came to light my characterization of the Kaingang tribe as a 
people uniformly employing a lineal descent terminology, and perhaps posses 
sing a terminology of a two-section type, would be rendered less convincing 
than at present. 
However, while no set of terms for any other subtribe has to my knowl- 
edge yet been published, one bibliographic source does contain sufficient data 
to permit the terminological character of another Central Kaingang subtribe 
to be partly deciphered. This is the magnificent dictionary, compiled by 
Barcatta, of the River Tibagy Kaingang who are located between the Nor 
thern Kaingang and the core of the Central Kaingang territory. The only 
information of ethnographic consequence on the Tibagy people is that con 
tained in this impressive compilation, but even this is insufficient to establish 
the nature of their “kinship system”. 
Despite being vague and inconsistent in attributing referents to certain 
of the relationship terms it contains, however, the dictionary nevertheless 
provides enough evidence to support my earlier contention that terminologi- 
oally the Duque de Caxias community and the Kaingang differ in quite basic 
respects, and the intention of the present essay is to disclose and present this 
The next section consists of all those relationship terms occurring in the 
dictionary. These I have extracted from the original text and collated with 
those referents given by Barcatta. But as the reader will quickly appreciate, 
the total picture is confused. Thus we find that in several cases more than one 
radical term denotes the same genealogical position; in others unexpected and 
^consistent positions are subsumed under the same radical; while the author 
is invariably guilty of failing to distinguish between these radicals and mere 
descriptive designations. Sense can be made from this assortment of categories 
a nd referents, nevertheless, and the following section reduces the multiplicity 
°f terms to eleven. These seem to be those radical categories ordering rela 
tionships in the Tibagy classificatory system. Page 932 of my 1971a essay 
iists the terms employed by the other four Kaingang subtribes, and those 
Titerested in comparing the two categorical sets may easily do so. They may

Note to user

Dear user,

In response to current developments in the web technology used by the Goobi viewer, the software no longer supports your browser.

Please use one of the following browsers to display this page correctly.

Thank you.