ニューヘブリデス,南西サントにおける関係名称
スポンサーリンク
概要
- 論文の詳細を見る
The aim of this paper is to discuss the change of terminology of Southwest Santo by means of comparing the data of DEACON, who engaged in his field work in 1920's, and of GUIART, whose field work was in 1950' s. Analysing the data of DEACON, R. LANE maintains that there exists a patrilateral prescriptive alliance in Southwest Santo. So we take up the theme of patrilateral prescriptive alliance in Chapter I. The dispute about it has lasted since NEEDHAM'S paper in 1958. He asserted that the patrilateral prescriptive alliances cannot exist in theory. His assertion consists of two grounds. One is that the patrilateral system is not workable from the point of alliance. The other is that it is bilateral from the point of terminology. In the first section of Chapter. I, what the diagram of prescriptive alliance represents is reexamined and in the second section, in contradiction to NEEDHAM'S assertion it is demonstrated that the patrilateral system can be workable from the point of alliance. In the third section, however, it is certified that it is bilateral from the point of terminology. Being bilateral, the patrilateral system is a unique one which is different from the two-section system in terms of both terminology and alliance. From this point of view, the terminology of Southwest Santo in 1920's is analysed in Chapter II. In the first section it is shown that though the terminology of Southwest Santo is not a patrilateral prescriptive terminology, the former is similar to the latter. By the way, when we discuss the change of prescriptive terminology, we cannot but examine the "evolution theory" of NEEDHAM. He argued the change of terminology from the point of the separation of category. But in the second section of Chapter II it is argued that we should also take into account the fusion of category when we argue the change of terminology. In the third section it is intended to show that the terminology in 1920' s has developed from a two-section terminology. We will find a clue to this intention in the vagueness of DEACON'S report. Although in his most complete list of terms the equation MBS=FZS appears, in his early rough list MBS=S≠FZS appears. This shows that he found MBS=S≠FZS in his early field work but later he revised it to MBS=FZS because he might notice a misusage of terms resulting in the former equation. But "the misusage of terms" is often a sign of change Considering this, we may say that MBS=FZS, which was peculiar to the previous system, has been changing to MBS=S=FZS. Moreover the present system is prescriptive and has some differential characteristics of two-section terminology. In Chapter III the terminology in 1950's reported by GUIART is analysed. It is reported that there is a unique category, vunuk(=line) , in Southwest Santo in 1950' s and even those who have remote relations with ego are classified into "mother's line" or "father's line". The "line" is neither a clan nor a moiety. In the first section, how the "line" Is expressed in the terminology, is argued. The terminology in the 1950' s is neither prescriptive nor lineal, and we find MBS=S≠FZS in it but not MBS=FZS by this time. In the second section we argue how the terminology of the 1920's has changed to that of the 1950' s, taking account of the fact that MBS=FZS has changed to MBS=S≠FZS in the first place.
- 日本文化人類学会の論文
- 1978-12-31