The Tibagy Kaingang
749
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
evidence.
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