clear descent or ambiguous houses

8/11/2019 Clear Descent or Ambiguous Houses

1/27

Stephen Hugh-Jones

Clear Descent or Ambiguous Houses ? A Re-Examination of

Tukanoan Social OrganisationIn: L'Homme, 1993, tome 33 n126-128. La remonte de l'Amazone. pp. 95-120.

Citer ce document / Cite this document :

Hugh-Jones Stephen. Clear Descent or Ambiguous Houses ? A Re-Examination of Tukanoan Social Organisation. In:L'Homme, 1993, tome 33 n126-128. La remonte de l'Amazone. pp. 95-120.

doi : 10.3406/hom.1993.369631

http://www.persee.fr/web/revues/home/prescript/article/hom_0439-4216_1993_num_33_126_369631
http://www.persee.fr/web/revues/home/prescript/author/auteur_hom_5125http://dx.doi.org/10.3406/hom.1993.369631http://www.persee.fr/web/revues/home/prescript/article/hom_0439-4216_1993_num_33_126_369631http://www.persee.fr/web/revues/home/prescript/article/hom_0439-4216_1993_num_33_126_369631http://dx.doi.org/10.3406/hom.1993.369631http://www.persee.fr/web/revues/home/prescript/author/auteur_hom_5125


2/27

Stephen

Hugh-Jones

Clear Descent or Ambiguous Houses?

A Re-Examination of Tukanoan

Social

Organisation

Stephen Hugh- Jones,

Clear Descent or

Ambiguous houses? A

re-examination of

ukanoan social organisation.

The Tukanoans of NW Amazonia are

usually character

ised

s being divided into intermarrying patrilineal

groups

each subdivided into

a set

of ranked clans or sibs.

This

essay argues that

the

concept of house societies

pro

vides a more accurate rendering

of

local idioms than descent . Social relations are

conceptualised in

two

different,

complementary

ways. One conceptualisation, emphasis

ing

ierarchy

and exclusiveness, is more pertinent to

mythological

and ritual contexts.

The

other more egalitarian,

inclusive

conceptualisation, emphasises consanguinity and

is

more

pertinent

to

daily

life.

Each

corresponds

to

a

different

gendered

projection

of

the house as

a physical

structure. Viewed in this light, structural parallels

with

the Guianas and Central Brazil become more

apparent.

By putting, so

to

speak,

two

in one , the house

accomplishes a sort of inside-out topological reversa

l

t replaces an internal duality with an

external

unity.

(C. Lvi-Strauss, The Way of the

Masks: 184-185).

Differentiation does not change the global setting,

given

once and for

all;

in a hierarchical schema

the

parts

that nest

one

inside

the

other may

increase

in number

without

changing

the

law.

(L. Dumont, Homo Hierarchicus: 243)

Descent Groups

or Houses?

Broadly speaking,

the kinship systems of

lowland

South

American can

be divided into two basic

types.

In Central Brazil, we find Crow/

Omaha-like relationship terminologies associated with systems

of name

transmission

and an

emphasis

on moieties.

But here we typically

find neither

unilineal descent

groups nor

clearly structured marriage systems,

the

convent

ionally

anticipated concomitants

of

Crow/Omaha

terminologies

and

moiety

systems.

In

Amazonia proper,

we

find

variations on

a

Dravidian

model

with

L'Homme 126-128,

avr.-dc

1993, XXXIII (2-4), pp. 95-120.


3/27

96

STEPHEN HUGH-JONES

symmetrical alliance and a two-section terminology. But here

we

typically find

cognatic forms of

social

organisation and

a tendency towards

various forms

of

oblique

marriage,

features which

make analysis

in

terms

of

conventional

alliance theory difficult, at least if this

is taken to imply

exchange between groups

defined

in

lineal terms.

Even when

we do

find

groups with apparently unilineal

features

the

notion

of

descent

has

proved

problematic.

Ideological

emphasis

on

descent-like principles

is rarely

matched by

the presence of socially significant

corporate

groups,

common substance is rarely a significant attribute of clans

or

lineages, and interest in genealogies

rarely

extends much beyond

the

realm

of

the

living.1

In this

recalcitrant

analytic

sea,

Northwest Amazonia has sometimes

seemed

like a haven of calm for, here at

last, in

Shapiro's words (1987: 303), patri-

liny

[.

.

.]

presents

enough of

the

classic

and familiar

features of

descent,

in

cluding a segmentary and

hierarchical

ordering

of

descent

units,

for

the

use

of these concepts

to

be relatively unproblematic This secure view of North

west mazonian social structure, though not without some foundation, also

has

its problems. The

notion

of descent

fits

uneasily with native

idioms

and

it comes complete with implications of corporateness and segmentation which

make little

sense

in this

context. Furthermore, notions

of

descent

are

relevant

largely

in

ritual

and mythological contexts and are

not

to

be

confused with

an ethos of consanguinity which is

more

pertinent

to

everyday

life.

This essay2 is offered as

both

an experiment and a

document.

In it I want

to

examine

whether

some

of

Lvi-Strauss'

ideas

concerning

socits

mai

son can provide fresh insight into certain

features

of

the

social

organisation

of the

eastern

Tukanoan-speaking

societies

of Northwest Amazonia.

At

the

same

time I

want

to

explore

the

ramifications

of

wii

or

house as an indigenous

category

and to

provide

some

account

of the rich

sociological

and

symbolic

imagery that

surrounds

Tukanoan architecture.

Some

40,000

Tukanoan Indians inhabit a large

area of

NW

Amazonia, an

area

comprising

the

basin

of

the

Rio

Vaups

or Uaups which straddles

the

Colombia-Brazil frontier. The

Tukanoans

are

divided into some twenty named

exogamic

patrilineal

groups each

having ties to

a specific

territory and

each speak

ing

different

but related

language.

They

have

a Dravidian

prescriptive

two-line

relationship

terminology associated with

a

system of

symmetric

alliance.

Langu

geunctions as a badge of

identity

and is often

referred to in the

specification

of marriage

rules:

a person should normally marry someone who speaks different

ly

rom themselves. Children speak their father's language but

also

know

and

understand that of

their mother

Repeated

marriages between

af finally

related

groups,

the outcome of a preference for

marriage with

a cross-cousin and spe

cifically with

the

FZD, result in individuals typically marrying people who speak

their

mother's

languages,

the

basis

of

a system

of

widespread multilingualism.

Marriages

between

affinally-related groups

go hand-in-hand

with

exchanges

of

food

and

goods

during

ceremonial

beer-feasts.

Each

group

is

traditionally

associated

with the manufacture of

specific

artefacts and ecological variations


4/27

Tukanoan

Social Organisation

97

mean that

not

everyone has

equal access

to the

same resources.

These

material

and marital

exchanges

integrate

the

different Tukanoan

groups

into an open-

ended

regional

system.

Horizontal affinal exchanges between

different groups

have

their

complement

in the vertical or

hierarchical ordering of agnatic

relations

within each one. Each

group, descended from

an anaconda

ancestor,

is

divided

into

a number

of clans

or sibs3

ranked

according

to the

birth

order of

their founding ancestors,

the

anaconda's sons.

Members

of a given

sib

refer to other

sibs

as

their

elder

or younger brothers. In

theory,

each sib should live

in

a single communal

long-house

or

maloca;

in

practice

the

residence group typically consists

of

a

sib-segment

or minimal

lineage,

a

group of brothers living with

their parents

and

their

in-married wives. The maloca community is

the

minimal

exogamic

unit

and

residence

is

virilocal: on marriage,

wives

move

in

whilst

sisters

move

out.

Tukanoan

life is

river

oriented;

in theory,

and

to

some extent

in

practice,

sib rank

is reflected in

spatial organisation. Senior

sibs

live downstream relative

to junior sibs who live towards the headwaters. Finally there are restrictions

on

marriage between some groups; those who

do

not intermarry are

related

as brothers

and belong

to

vaguely-defined, un-named and dispersed phratries.

In this brief sketch, I have tried to outline the

way

in

which

Tukanoan

social

organisation

is typically

characterised

in the

ethnographic

literature,

a character

isation

hich

relies

heavily

on the concept of

descent.4

After a brief descrip

tionf

the

maloca,

I shall present an alternative

to

this

male-centred,

lineal

view;

I

shall

argue

that

Tukanoans

conceptualise

social

relationships

in

two

differing, complementary

ways.

One, corresponding to the anthropologists'

descent,

emphasises

hierarchy and

a general

masculine

ethos

and is most salient

in the

context of male

initiation

rites. The other conceptualisation is

more

egalitarian,

is

associated with a more feminine ethos and emphasises notions

of kinship and

consanguinity.

Though

especially pertinent

to

daily life, it too

is given

ritual

expression during

inter-community

exchange feasts. These two

conceptualisations correspond to two different,

gendered readings

of the house

as a physical

structure.

One

reading

finds echoes

in

the Guianas,

the

other

in

Central Brazil.

When compared

with most

Amazonian

architecture,

Tukanoan

malocas

stand

out

both for their

size,

careful construction

and

elaborate

decoration and for

their

importance as models of category

systems

and dynamic processes in the

human and natural worlds. In his discussion of socits

maison

Lvi-

Strauss

is

concerned more with

the

House

as

form

of

social grouping than with

houses as buildings.5 However, though there is no

necessary correlation

be

tween

the

two,

the salience of the

House

as

a social

institution is frequently

reflected

in

architectural elaboration. The physical and

intellectual

elaboration

of their architecture

is

only of several

reasons

why it

might

be profitable

to

apply

the

House concept

to the Tukanoans.

The

ownership

and lineal

transmission

of

names,

titles

and

other

ritual

prero

gatives

an

important

aspect of the notion of House (see Lvi-Strauss 1991)


5/27

98 STEPHEN

HUGH-JONES

are

also integral

to the Tukanoan idioms

usually glossed

as

descent. Indeed,

it could be said that Tukanoan groups

are constituted

much more by

such

proper

ty

han

they

are

by

any

notions

of

common substance

or

unbroken

lines

of

kinship through men. For Lvi-Strauss, the

House

is characteristic of societies

in

which

the

principle of lineage

continuity is in

constant interplay with

that

of

temporary

or more

permanent alliance

which binds two or

more

lineages

together.

This produces a new

type of

social unit

in

which

la

faon dont

les lignes

s'entrecroisent

et se

nouent compte

autant

sinon plus

que leur conti

nuit

{ibid.: 435). Christine Hugh-Jones (1979:

161 ff.) has

already drawn

attention to the

crucial importance

of

names, matrilateral

ties

and

the

inter

linking

of

allied

lineages for an

understanding

of

group

continuity in

Tukanoan

society. Lvi-Strauss also suggests that the

House

represents a form of

social

organisation

which

might

be

described

as

standing halfway between

lineal

and

cognatic principles of social organisation, conflating and transcending principles

which

are

normally taken

to be mutually

exclusive. This

is

clearly consistent

with

the two

different

Tukanoan conceptualisations of

social relationships,

one

lineal,

the other cognatic,

projected

in

androgynous representations of the house.

House and Community

Up

to

thirty metres

long

and ten metres high, Tukanoan

malocas

have a

palmthatch gabled

roof

supported

on

a row of

paired

wooden columns

run

ning

down

the

middle

and

on

two rows

of

short

pillars

one

at

each

side.

At

the sides, the

roof comes

down nearly to the ground; the rear, women's

end

forms

a

semi-circular apse whilst the front,

men's

end is

square

(fig. 1).

On

either side of

the

front door,

the

external

walls

are often painted with human

figures

and striking geometrical designs; inside, suspended above

the

centre,

hangs a

large

box containing

feather ornaments.

The significance

of

these

human

and

architectural ornaments

will

become clear

later.

The

wooden house-frame is

constructed

by

a group

of

men who

are physically

identified with

the

main columns. Their wives

help

them

with

the

thatching,

a lengthy process which

has

affinal

connotations

and often involves visiting

neighbours.

The

man

who

organises

the

construction

of

a

maloca

becomes

the

leader

and representative of the community who lives within;

building

a

maloca together implies

recognition

of his leadership and acceptance of a

particular social arrangement. The visual impact of

the

building

ts

size,

decoration,

and

cleanliness

s

a

sign of the leader's

standing and

of the prestige

and cohesion of his group. On the

leader's

death, he is

buried

in the centre

of

the

floor,

the

maloca is abandoned, and the community reforms or

divides.

The community or people of one

house (koho

wiida) is made up of

a group of

brothers,

their wives and children and their unmarried

sisters.

Their

parents, if still

alive, act as an important unifying

focus. Malocas

rarely contain

more

than

thirty

individuals

and

residential

groups

of

half

that

number

are

more usual. The community

is

a compromise between unity and division,


6/27

Tukanoan

Social Organisation 99

[ \

F

Family compartment

TO&

House

post

H

>-

Women s door

Permanent

wall

Hot plate

Doors

Dance

path

RIGHT

Men s

door LEFT

/g. 1. Ground-plan

of Tukanoan

maloca.

between

centrifugal and centripetal

forces. The men

belong to the

same descent

group but rules of

exogamy

and

virilocality

mean that

they

are divided

by ties

to

wives

belonging

to

other groups; each family occupies a separate compart

ment

owards

the rear

end

of the

house. The men

are

also divided by

differences

in age

which

are reflected in behaviour and spatial organisation.

The headman

and

owner

of the

house

is normally the eldest

brother. He

is treated

with a certain

amount of deference and has his compartment on

the

right

hand side furthest

to the

rear;

the

compartments of married younger brothers

are

further towards

the front whilst

both unmarried

youths and guests sleep near the front door.

Each

family represents

a

potential

household

and,

in

the

end, tensions

between

them

(typically over food, sex and authority) lead

to the break-up

of

the

group.


7/27

100 STEPHEN HUGH-JONES

In

everyday

life differences of seniority, affinity, and familial self-interest

are carefully downplayed

in

favour of an emphasis on unity expressed

in

the idioms

of

family,

kinship

and

nurturance.

Food

production

is

organised

by

family

and

wives cook meat and fish brought by their husbands

on the

hearth

inside their

compartment.

Though

food

is

produced by

individual

men

and

women, much

of

it

is consumed communally

by

the

household

as

a whole

and the

staple

manioc

bread is baked

on

a communal hot-plate situated

in the

open part at

the

rear

of the

house, a place

where

people sit and

warm

themselves, a focus

of

gossip

and casual intimacy where outsiders do not normally go.

Meals

are eaten near

the

centre

of the

house, a

public space reserved

for

unifying rituals

which contrasts

with the compartmentalised

periphery.

Food

sharing

is

crucial

to the

maintenance of group cohesion

;

non-sharing

is

a sure

sign

of

tensions

and

divisions.

A

full

and

proper

meal,

the

essence

of

contented

sociality,

is made up of

female-produced manioc products and male-produced

fish or

meat

spiced

with

chilli-pepper,

a substance

which has marked

sexual

connot

ations.6

At

formal meals, man

eat

before women, a further marking of gender

complementarity. The meal

thus

presents an image of

the

household

as

a single

family

with

the

men as husband ,

the

women as wife and

the

children shared

in common.

The

ideal maloca

community,

identified with the house it

builds,

is thus one that

acts

and thinks like

a single family

and

outside

the context of

ritual,

social

relations are

informal

and egalitarian and an ideology of kinship

prevails.7

Amongst predominantly

uxorilocal

groups

elsewhere

in

Amazonia,

ideas

of community are

often constructed

through female kinship relations (Seymour-

Smith

1991).

The

Tukanoans' patrilineal and patrilocal

emphasis precludes

this possibility. Instead, as will be seen below,

we

find

the

notion

of community

transposed onto the

representation

of

a womb-like, female house.

Food-Giving

House

Though

each

maloca forms

an autonomous

and

largely

indpendant

community, clusters of

neighbouring

houses,

belonging

to

two

or

more

different

exogamous

groups,

make

up a territorial group

with

fluid

and shifting

boundaries defined by

density of kinship

ties,

the

frequency

of

visiting, reciprocal

feasting and intermarriage, and by influence of shamans and other important

men.

Symmetrical alliance and a preference for

close marriage means

that,

although

the maloca

community

is

exogamous,

the territorial

group

is relatively

endogamous. Brothers

and sisters

tend to

live in

neighbouring

houses linked

by long-standing

ties of

alliance

so

that their children marry each

other.

If

the maloca

community

is like

a single

family, de facto the territorial group

is

an

extended

endogamous

kindred, an

arrangement

not

dissimilar

to

that

found in the Guianas (Rivire

1984).

Of course, the difference is that

in


8/27

Tukanoan Social

Organisation 101

the Guiana area such

endogamous

territorial

groups

have

a

lower-level counter

part

n the

(ideally) endogamous settlement group itself (ideally) a single house

hold;

despite

its

familial

ethos,

the

exogamous

Tukanoan

settlement

group

is

structured

according

to

quite different principles.

However,

during beer

feasts,

endogamous Tukanoan territorial

groups do

come together on a

temporary

basis

and,

on

such

occasions,

they too present

themselves

as if they formed a single

household. Such

feasts

are called

houses , the house

standing metonymically

for

the

people inside.

At

Food-giving House (bare ekaria wii),

men from a

visiting maloca present

their hosts

and affines with smoked meat or fish and act as principle dancers

in the

dance

that

follows.8

In return the

host community

provides

vast

amounts of manioc beer which

the

guest must consume

before

leaving, if

necessary

vomiting

to

make

more

room.

At

a

later

date

the

hosts go

to

dance

in the house of

their

erstwhile guests,

presenting

them in

turn

with

a

comple

mentary gift fish for meat, one

localised

product for another.

These exchanges reflect

the

opposed complementary and egalitarian relation

shipetween

af

finally-related

groups

represented, in

the

context of

the

ritual,

primarily

by

the

men. The

ritual and

its associated mythology

serve to

underline

the fact that

affinal

relations

between

communities are represented in

terms

of gender:

the

host-recipients

are

female

in

relation

to

their male donor-

guests. The guests provide

male-produced

food

and

remain

in the

front men's

end

of the

house. Their hosts provide them with

female-produced

manioc beer

and remain towards

the

women's

end

where

they

receive

fish

or

meat

like

women

receiving their

husband's catch. As

the

food is brought in,

the

donors shout

obscene jokes which leave

no

doubt about

the implied relationship

between

the two

parties.

At

the start of the rite the visitors are treated

very formally

and

keep separate

from their hosts.

By the end, such differences have been obliterated:

hosts

and guests sit together,

dance

together

and

replace

formal chanting

with

informal

banter and raucous laughter. This effacement

of

affinal formality parallels

the

transition from wife

to

mother

as

in-married

women

are incorporated

into

their husband's group. The ritual ends with a

communal meal

at which

the

smoked

meat

or

fish,

boiled

in

a

pot,

is

served

with

home-baked manioc

bread

to

everyone present. Here then, it is

the

territorial group which presents

itself

as

a single commensal family,

the

guests acting

as the meat-providing

husband

and the

hosts

as the bread-baking,

meat-cooking

wife.

The

image of

a food-exchanging, commensal couple

living

their children

in

a single

residential

space

generates

a nested series which extends from

family

compartment through

maloca

community

to the territorial

group, a

series

whose

connecting

thread is

marriage

and

reproduction. Marriage between a man

and

a woman

creates

a family in a compartment.

The

marriages of

their sons

create

a maloca community which

celebrates

its affinal relations with

neighbouring

communities

through

food-exchange

rituals.

These

rituals

provide

the

context

for further liaisons and marriages. As

the

sons

have

children

in

their turn,


9/27

102 STEPHEN HUGH-JONES

the maloca

community

dissolves

and replicates

itself

anew. Like daughters of

women

who

become mothers

in their turn,

each compartment

represents

a

future

house. Not

surprisingly,

the

maloca

itself

is

sometimes

spoken about

as

a

woman:

the

rounded

rear

of

the

house

is

her head,

the

front

entrance

is

her vagina, and

the

cavernous interior

is her womb.

The House as Cosmos

In myth

and

shamanic discourse,

the

nested

imagery of womb and child,

compartment

and family, maloca and

community,

territory and neighbourhood

group extends outwards

to

embrace

the

cosmos

and humanity. The maloca itself

replicates

and models

the structure

of

the

cosmos:

its

floor

is

the earth

and

its

posts are

the mountains

supporting

the

roof

or

sky above. Like

the

mountains

which delineate

the territories of the

different

Tukanoan

groups,

the

posts define

the

interior space of

the

house

and,

in

the

right context, each may represent a

different group. Down

the centre

of

the

maloca,

from

rear to

front,

west to

east,

runs an invisible

river

on

whose banks and tributaries

the

people live.

During rituals,

for those who understand

such things,

human

time

merges with

timeless myth and the maloca and

its contents assume cosmic proportions

and

significance.

According

to the

Desana creation myth9,

the

universe was created by a f

emale

deity

who

covered

her

body

with feather

ornaments

to

form

a

protective

house.

Inside

this

house or

universe-womb ,

the

deity created five Thunders,

each

in his

own compartment

four

at

the

cardinal points and a fifth suspended

above

the centre

space (fig. 2a, 2b, 2c). Like its

analogue

the

feather

box,

this

fifth

compartment contained

feather

ornaments, semen-like generative principles

in male/female

pairs and associated with

the

light of

the sun

(see also Reichel-

Dolmatoff 1971:

48).

The Thunder vomited

the feathers

from

his body:

they

became proto-men

and women

who travelled

upriver from the East inside an

anaconda-canoe.

A

further transformation of

the

Thunder's body, its

name

fermentation-anaconda or

fermentation-canoe

evokes

the canoe-like

trough

used

for

brewing

manioc

beer.

As they travelled,

the

feather-people

periodically stopped, went up onto

the

banks and danced. The anaconda's journey gave rise

to the

river

up which it

swam; its

stopping

places, rapids and rock outcrops along

the

river,

are

trans

formation-houses , ancestral

dwellings

created

by

the

dances

of the feather-people

(fig.

3). Their

journey and dancing are compared

to

a gestation

but

note however

that,

in

this mythical process,

it

was

the

things contained (anaconda-canoe, people)

which

gave rise

to

the containers (river, houses), an inversion of the normal process

in

which

the

containing

womb

gives rise

to

a

contained

child.

When the

anaconda-canoe

had reached the

Vaups

region, the centre of the

world,

the

feather-people

were

now

fully

human.

They disembarked

at

the

great

rapid

of Ipanor; as

ancestors

of the

different

Tukanoan

groups they

emerged


10/27

Tukanoan


Fig. 2a.

Luis

Lana's Drawing

of

the

Universe House

(from

Umsin Panln Kumu and

Tolamn

Kenhir

1980: 194).

Fig.

2b.

The

Universe House

interpreted

according

to the

text

in Umsin

Panln

Kumu

and

Tolamn Kenhir 1980: 51-54.

1. Universe Tower-home of Bar

Eagle.

2. Sky

House-home

of the 3rd Thunder.

3. Milk River

House-home

of

1st Thunder.

4.

Apaporis

River

House-home

of

4th Thunder.

5.

Night

House-home

of 5th

Thunder.

6.

Parica

River (Iana) Rapid House-home of 2nd Thunder.

7.

White

Rock Layer-compartiment of

deity.


11/27

104

STEPHEN

HUGH-JONES

Fig. 2c. Our World by Gabriel Santos (Tukano). From

Bksta 1988:

47.

1. Our house in the

centre

where

we

hold the

ceremony.

2. House of Sky Thunder; the

main

refuge of the shaman.

3. Milk

River

House

on the River Amazon.

4. Protective sphere made by the ceremonial official.

5. Night House. Home of the Thunder of the headwaters.

6.

Subterranean House. Minor

refuge of

the

shaman.

I di. u/dvusmum. au.

Ci yZtX

jui

da

/x/aJu**n. paalu, ati

Fig.

3.

Luis

Lana' Drawing

of Ancestral

Houses

along

the River Uaups

(from Umsin

Panln Kumu

and Tolamn Kenhir 1980: 207):

Continuing its voyage,

the

transformation canoe ascended

the River Uaups,

leaving houses

on

the

right bank

up

as

far

as [.

.

.]

the

Tiqui.

At

he

30th

house,

River

House

of

the

Ancient

Master of Dancing, the creator decided to separate the tribes

giving each

on

its own language

(my translation, S. H.-J.)


12/27

Tukanoan


carrying

the

ornaments from which they

had been

born, each

through

their

own

hole

in the

rocks

of the

rapid. They

then

dispersed

to

ancestral

houses

in

their

respective

territories whilst

the

anaconda-canoe

returned

to its

original

form,

the

Thunder in his house

in the

sky.

Though

an

order

of

emergence

may be specified,

the

myth plays down hier

archy

between

different Tukanoan

groups

in

favour

of an equality of

difference

marked by

different

emblematic languages

and items of

material culture. As

we

shall see, this is in marked contrast to the emphasis on

rank

and hierarchy

which applies when

this

myth relates

the origins

of one specific group.

This myth clearly

confirms the

suggestion

of the nesting

series

womb-child

< compartment-family < maloca-community < territory-neighbourhood

clear descent or ambiguous houses

Documents