Dr. Meera Swain

Abstract

Saora of southern Odisha are the southern most Austric speaking people who inhabit the hilly regions of south Odisha Lanjia Saoras mostly inhabit in Rayagada and Gajapati districts of Orissa, which were created after 1991 Census. The present study was carried out with preliminary observations in five villages of Serango Grama Panchayat in Gajapati district and later field studies were conducted in two villages of Sagada Gram Panchayat and two villages of Puttasing Gram Panchayat in Gunupur Subdivision of Rayagada district. Kinship terminology depicts the genealogical picture of a society and is used in address and reference as denotative of social position relevant to interpersonal conduct. The objective of the present study is to explore the kinship terms in different lines of relationship and to establish the degree of relationship within the several kin groups of Saora tribe.

Saora kinship terminology in the lines of father, mother, son, daughter, brother, sister, husband, wife and father’s sister are depicted and are analysed into denotative and classificatory terms. The study reveals that in Saora society, kinship terms do not have much distinction between terms of address and terms of reference. The terms of reference are more specific in their application and complete than terms of address. The analysis reveals that there is terminological merging of collateral kins with the lineal ones and also of second ascending with third ascending, and of second descending with third descending generations. The study assumes importance in the present juncture, as the use of kinship terms and behaviour are changing.

1. Introduction

Kinship relations consist of the interacting roles customarily ascribed by people to the different status of relationship. Every culture includes a set of words or labels, symbolizing each of its kinship status. These labels are called kinship terms, and the whole system is called the kinship terminology. Relationship terms are important for two reasons. It indicates the status of the person addressed or mentioned with reference to speakers and is related to the wide spread prejudice against the vocative use of the personal names, for which kinship appellations may be substituted even to the extent of assuming relationship where none exists. But the significance of the kinship terms goes far beyond the mode of address. Anthropologists study them not merely as so many words inviting linguistic analysis and comparison, but as correlates of social customs. Broadly speaking, the use of specific kinship designation, e.g. the maternal as distinguished from the paternal uncle indicates that these two receive differential treatment from their nephews and nieces. Sometimes the very essence of the social fabric may be demonstratively connected with the mode of classifying kin. Thus, kinship nomenclature becomes one of the most important topics. It is opined that “kinship terminologies are system of consanguinity and affinity, concurring to a people’s recognition of their genealogical relationships in an organized way”( Morgan, 1871). On the other hand, Radcliffe- Brown (1952) enunciated the idea that kinship terms are like “signposts” to interpersonal conduct or etiquette with implication of appropriate reciprocal life, duties, privileges and obligations. These two views have a superficial resemblance. They are both sociological theories of kinship terminologies, but they refer to quite different aspects of social life, where one refers to the genealogical organization, and the other refers to the patterns in the conduct of interpersonal relations.

During the earliest years, reflection of kinship terminologies in the forms of marriage and families were very much apparent (Morgan, 1871). McLennan (1970) observed that they were merely forms of mutual situations and were not related to actual blood ties at all. But Morgan’s view won the argument because many people today think of kinship terminology in respect of genealogical picture of the society. Kinship terms are used in address and reference as denotative of social position relevant to interpersonal conduct. They are therefore a form of status terminology. The status term is further treated by Munroe Edmondson as “a word designating a class of individual occupying simultaneously or serially a single position in the social system with specific defining patterns of rights and duties, the fulfillment of which is legitimatised and guaranteed by sanctions”. Linguist Joseph Greenbery defined it as a subsidiary aspect of a great functional entity. Kinship term is a linguistic tie for a role, the role has biological criteria or admitted substitutes for admission to it, and it has also cultural criteria for performance kinship terms and role terms( Bohannan, 1963). Status term can be broadly divided into familistic and non-familistic. Again a term specifying a social position relative to another particular person “an ego” is called “egocentric” and one, which specifies a social position relative to the structure of the society itself, could be called “Socio centric”. Thus, kinship terminologies have a tremendous social function.

In India many Munda terminologies are generational in ego’s level but two-line perspective with the corollary that affinal terms are normally separate in +1 and -1 (Parkin, 1992). Saora of southern Orissa are the southern most Austric speaking people who inhabit the hilly regions of south Orissa and north-eastern Andhra. The common identity of Lanjia Soara is expressed in their lineage (Kheja).However homogeneity at the levels cultural autonomy, economy; literacygoal orientation and holding uniform attitude towards the outside world is not observed (Mohapatra, 1982-83). A study of kinship terms may help to elucidate the idea underlying the Saora way of recognizing and grasping the kins and hence is the objective of the present study. Further, the study tries to explore the kinship terms in different lines of relationship, as there are several kin groups like “punja” and “Kulam” and thekinsmen are terminologically related through each members of the basic kin group i.e., “family”.

2. Study area and Methodology

2.1 Study Area

Lanjia Saoras mostly inhabit in Rayagada and Gajapati Districts of Orissa, India (Fig. 2). Rayagada and Gajapati districts were created after 1991 Census. Prior to 1991 these two districts were in the jurisdiction of Koraput and Ganjam district respectively. Table 1 depicts the demographic profile of the two districts. Scheduled Tribe (ST) population in Rayagada district (463418) is much more than the tribal population in Gajapati district (263476). Further, percentage of ST population in Rayagada district is also higher as compared to the same in Gajapati district. Therefore, in the present study more emphasis has been given to Rayagada district. The growth rate of rural population shows a decreasing trend in Rayagada district (16.10 in 1981-91 to 13.29 in 1991-2001). Literacy rate (as per 2001 Census) of Rayagada district (35.61) is less than that of Gajapati district (41.73). Furthermore, the literacy rate of rural population in Rayagada (29.12) is much less than that of Gajapati (38.0). In Rayagada the Saora population are concentrated in six Grama Panchayats of Gunupur Subdivision, viz., Puttasing, Sagada, Tolona, Jaltar, Chinasari and Kulusing (Fig.1). The literacy rate of Gunupur subdivision is 40.09. Similarly in Gajapati district, Saora populations are mostly concentrated in several villages of Paralakhemundi Subdivision whose literacy rate is 42.93.

Field studies were conducted in two villages of Sagada (Kereba &Dungdunger) Gram Panchayat and two villages of Puttasing Gram Panchayat (Rejingtal & Jongjong) in Gunupur Subdivision of Rayagada district. Preliminary observations were made at Serango GP of Gumma Block in Paralakhemundi subdivision of Gajapati district. Villages studied in Serango Gram Panchayat of Gajapati district are Patsayadjang, Angada, Bhubani, Abasing and Tabrunda located within 10 km distance from Serango. Kereba and Dungdunger villages in Sagada Gram Panchayat are mostly surrounded by hills and forests. From Sagada the villages are connected by kaccha road. Rejingtal village in Puttasing GP is well connected by Pucca road to Gunupur and is only 1 km distance from Puttasing. The village Jongjong is situated within 4 km. distance from Puttasing but at a height of 1000ft above Puttasing. The elevation of Puttasing is about 2000ft above Mean Sea Level (MSL). Thus, to reach Jungjung one has to ride hills right from Puttasing. Sagada GP is bounded by Serango GP of Gajapati district in the north, Kulusing GP in the south, Nuagada block of Gajapati district in the east and Puttasing GP in the west. The soil is hard dry and lactite in both the Gram Panchayats. The general nature of the land is undulating. Villages in Serango GP of Gajapati district are also surrounded by hills and forests. High, medium and lowlands are mostly observed which are used as cultivable lands by the Saoras in Gunupur as well as in Paralakhemundi subdivision. These areas come under Eastern ghat hill ranges.

2.2 Methodology

During the field study, the emphasis is laid on both participant and non-participant observation to investigate their actual kinship terminologies in use, kinship behaviours etc. Interview is the one of the systematic methods for intensive and extensive study of the social structure of a society. It is found to be extremely helpful to collect data on every aspect of their society and culture. As a part of interview, the interview guide method was adopted to make the informants understand the questions better. The method helped the author to get their appreciations and detail response to the questions put to them..

As for the demographic study, census is essential, census forms of Saora were filled up, which later helped the author to make different statistical and demographic analysis such as educational, occupational, marital status, distribution of Birindas of the Saora tribe etc. Besides the methods above, some case histories were also collected regarding kinship terminologies and their usages, categories and ritual kinship etc. Through the case-study method, the author could validate some of her observations and data collected by other methods.

Figure 1: Study area showing the two districts of Orissa (Rayagada and Gajapati) and the six Gramphanchayats under Gunupur subdivision of Rayagada district.

3. Kinship terms in different lines of relationship

The kinship terminologies generally used in different levels of Saora kin groups are depicted in the Tables 1-10.

Table 1: Kinship terminology in the family

Table 2: Kinship terminology in the father’s line

Table 3: Kinship terminology in the Mother’s Line

Table 4: Kinship terminology in the Son’s Line

Table 5: Kinship terminology in the Daughter’s Line

Table 6: Kinship terminology in the Brother’s Line

Table 7: Kinship terminology in the Sister’s Line

Table 8: Kinship terminology in the Husband’s Line

Table 9: Kinship terminology in the Wife’s Line

Table 10: Kinship terminology in the Father’s Sister’s Line

4. Analytical Study of kinship Terminology

A brief analysis is inevitable for the proper identification and understanding of various types of applications of kinship terminologies. According to Murdock (1949), kinship terms are technically classified in three different ways; i) by their mode of use; ii) by their linguistic structure and iii) by their range of applications. The terms of address and the terms of reference are the two variable modes of use. To Murdock, a term of address is one, used in speaking to a relative; it is a part of the linguistic behavior, a characteristic of reference used to designate a relative while speaking about him to a third person. It is thus not a part of the relationship itself, but a word denoting a person who occupies a particular kinship status. In Saora society, kinship terms do not have much distinction between terms of address and terms of reference. In almost all the cases, the term of address and term of reference are same except Husband and Wife, Younger Brother, Elder Brother, Elder Sister and Younger Sister etc. Terms of address and reference for sons and daughters are same though sometimes they are addressed by their name. Sometimes daughters are referred as Ansalai. Husband and Wife address each other by the term ‘Eh’ or Tecknonymously. In case of grandmother and grandfather, terms of reference are ‘YuYu’ and ‘Juju’ respectively but the terms of address followed some suffixes like ‘ng’ and ‘nm’ and resulted in “Yuyung” and ‘Jujung’ or ‘jujunm’. As mentioned by Murdock and as relevant from the Saora kin terms, the terms of reference are more specific in their application and complete than terms of address. Among Saora communities, the terms of references are more clear-cut though often some kinsmen are addressed by their names. According to linguistic structure, kinship terms are distinguished as elementary, derivative and descriptive. As per the definition of Murdock, an elementary term is an irreducible word, like English ‘Father’ or ‘Nephew’ which cannot be analyzed into component lexical elements with kinship meanings. The elementary terms like ‘Wang’ (Father) , ‘Yang’ (Mother), Uleng, SoSo, DaSo, SoDa, DaDa), Tangaba (Husband), Dukri or Enselse (Wife) etc. are found along with other such terms within Saora relationship terms. But the derivative and descriptive type kinship terms are not observed in Saora society. The most interesting field of kin term is the range of its applications. This is again sub-divided as denotative and classificatory.

4.1 Denotative Terms

A denotative term is one, which applies only to relatives in a single kinship category as defined by sex, generation and genealogical connection (Murdock, 1949). Sometimes, this denotative term can be applicable for a particular speaker who can denote only one person. However, this denotative term applies to several persons of identical kinship connections. Denotative terms are mostly confined to the primary relatives and become rare with secondary relatives. Some of the denotative terms in use in Saora society are:

Father- Wang, Mother- Yang, Son- Ann, Daughter- Ann or Ansalai, Younger Brother- Obang, Younger Sister- Aing, The terms lack competition within the kinship terms of Saora society.

4.2 Classificatory terms

Classificatory term is the most prevailing feature within the Saora Kinship terminology. As Murdock (1949) has defined,” a classificatory term is one that applies to persons of two or more kinship categories, as generation, sex and genealogical connection defines these”. The principles of generation and sex are prominent among the Saora. From Morgan’s days it was customary to speak of classificatory kinship system which is regarded as characteristic of primitive tribes. A classificatory term arises only by ignoring one or more fundamental distinctions between relatives, which if given full linguistic recognition would result in designating different terms. In Saora society, the principle is somewhat flexible as they address son and daughter as “Ann” and grandson to Granddaughter as “Uleng” making no sex differentiation. The following are the classificatory kin terms generally prevailing in the Saora society (Table-11).

Table 11: Classificatory Kin terms of Saora Society

5. Conclusion

Kinship terminologies are system of consanguinity and affinity, concurring to a people’s recognition of their genealogical relationships in an organized way (Morgan, 1871). Kinship terms are used in address and reference as denotative of social position relevant to interpersonal conduct. Saora kinship terminology in the lines of father, mother, son, daughter, brother, sister, husband, wife and father’s sister are depicted and analysed into denotative and classificatory terms.

It is observed that in Saora society, kinship terms do not have much distinction between terms of address and terms of reference. The terms of reference are more specific in their application and complete than terms of address. The componential analysis, a method in both semantic and cultural description, helps to know the logical background of the kinship terminology. The analysis reveals interesting features of Saora kinship terminology. The Saora kinship system also reveals that there is terminological merging of collateral kins with the lineal ones and also of second ascending with third ascending, and of second descending with third descending generations. There are no distinct terms to differentiate between grandson and granddaughter as only one term “Uleng” is used for both. Hence the methods of cognitive anthropology need to be combined with the traditional methods of data collection of kinship in order to grasp the components of the kin terms.

Acknowledgement

This paper is part of my Ph. D work. I am extremely thankful to my Ph.D supervisor Prof. P.K. Nayak for his able guidance, constant encouragement and support. I am also thankful to the villagers of the Saora villages who provided the information and data unhesitantly and made this study possible.

References

• Bohannan, Paul, 1963: Social Anthropology, Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Newyork.

• McLennan, J. F., 1970 [1865]: Primitive Marriage. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

• Mohapatra,G.,1982-83:The Saora view of good life, happy life, prosperous life and of development. MANAV,Volume-1,No1,pp-181-197.

• Morgan, Lewis Henry, 1871: Systems of Consanguinity and Affinity of the Human Family. Smithsonian Contributions to Knowledge 17. Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Institution.

• Murdock, George Peter, 1949: Social Structure. New York: Macmillan.

• Parkin, Robert, 1992:The Munda of Central India: An account of their social organization, Chapter-7, Delhi, Oxford University press. Radcliffe- Brown, A.R., 1952: Structure and Function in Primitive Society. New York: Free Press.

• Radcliffe- Brown, A.R., 1952: Structure and Function in Primitive Society. New York: Free Press.