Equally complex as Cree terminology is
the Sioux language, indicating that kin relationships are a
highly significant cultural feature. A flavour of this
complexity is conveyed by a few of the terms below drawn
from Walker's 1913 list:
[Relatives in generations older than person]
Hunkake -
Ancestor
Tunkan - Grandfather (may be used by anyone)
Tunkansi - Maternal grandfather (used in this sense only by
grandchildren when addressing or speaking of their mother's
father); Father-in-Law (when used by any other than the
grandchildren)
Tunkansila - Paternal grandfather (used in this sense only
by grandchildren when addressing or speaking of their
father's father); A term of respect used in addressing any
very old man (wicahica), a title of respect given to a high
official, such as the President of the United States; it is
also a title of address by the Oglala to their superior god
Wi, the Sun.
Kun - Paternal grandmother (may be used by anyone)
Kunsi - Paternal grandmother (used only by grandchildren in
ad- dressing or speaking of their father's mother)
Onci - Maternal grandmother (may be used by anyone)
iOncis - Maternal grandmother (used in this sense only by
grandchildren when addressing or speaking of their mother's
mother); Mother-in-law (when used by any other than the
grandchildren); A term of respect used when addressing any
very old woman (winohica).
Atku - Father
Ate - Papa (used only by children when addressing their
father or his brother)
Hun - Mother
Ina - Mama (used only by children when addressing their
mother or her sister)
Leksi - Uncle (the brother of the mother)
Tonwin - Aunt (the sister of the father)
[Relatives in person's own generation]
Ciye - Eldest brother of a male
Tiblo - Eldest brother of a female
Sunka - Younger brother of a male or female
Cunwe - Eldest sister of a female
Tanke - Eldest sister of a male
Tanka - Younger sister of a female
Tankasi - Younger sister of a male
Tahansi - Male cousin of a male
Hankasi - Female cousin of a male
Sicesi - Male cousin of a female
Sicepansi - Female cousin of a female
Of equal importance are the cultural norms governing
marriage and divorce. A glimpse of this is provided by this
lengthy quotation from Walker's study:
In former times it appears that the social
conditions and customs of the Oglalas were something as
follows. A camp (wicoti) was a collection of tipis and
persons associated by common consent for social
purposes. Any member of a camp might withdraw from it at
his will and either join another camp, make a camp of
his own, or live alone. If he joined another camp he
thereby became a member of that camp and subject to its
rules and regulations. If he camped alone he was
independent of all rules and regulations except such as
he chose to make for himself.
In his tipi he was lord and his will was law
governing all the inmates. His woman (tawicu) was his
property, for which he either paid the customary price (winyancin),
stole her away (wiinalima), or took her by capture (wayaka).
He might dispose of her at his will either by throwing
her away (ihipeya) or giving her away (winyanku). He
(might keep her and treat her as a wife (for which there
is no word in the Sioux language) in which case she was
consulted relative to the affairs of the family, or he
might keep her simply to do the work incident to life in
a tipi and to satisfy his sexual passions, or more
often, to bear him children.
The animal instinct of preserving his female for
his own use was strongly developed among the men of this
people. If at any time a woman was found guilty of
adultery (wawicihiahiapi) or of disgraceful and
unbecoming conduct (ohianwahanhan), her man (hignaku)
might throw or give her away, or inflict such punishment
on her as he saw fit, such punishment for this usually
being to mutilate her in some way so as to show w hat
she had been guilty of. He might kill her for this
transgression, when he would not incur the enmity of her
friends, as he would if he should kill her without what,
according to the customs of the Sioux, was considered a
sufficient cause for doing so. Or he might mutilate her
person by cutting off her nose or an ear.
But the most usual manner of disfiguring her was
to cut off one braid of her hair, leaving the other long
for the first offense, and if it was repeated, then to
mutilate her person in some way, and if she persisted in
her conduct, then to kill her.
But if she was thrown or given away, then the man
who did so had no more authority or control over her or
her actions.
While the position of the woman in the family was
subordinate to the man in almost every particular, she
had certain rights which were recognized among the
Sioux, as follows. She had the right to leave a man who
had taken her, in which case her friends could take her
part in the difference, and if they thought that she had
not sufficient cause for her action they could restore
her to her man, If he so wished it. Then the only way
she could escape remaining his woman was to fly and
remain in hiding from him, or to become the woman of
someone who was the more powerful than her former man,
and able to maintain his possession of the woman, by
force if need be (yazapi).
Her rights while in the family (wicowepi) pertain
to the household (tiwahe). It was her duty to skin the
larger game, and the skins became her property, and she
was expected to tan them or other- wise fit them for
use. If she made them up into articles for the use of
the man, they then became the personal property of the
man, or if she made them up for the personal use of a
grown up son or anyone not a member of the family, they
became the personal property of the one for whom they
were made. But if she made them up for any other person
or use in the family they remained her own, which she
had the right to dispose of in any manner she saw fit.
But the men skinned the smaller furbearing animals, and
while the women tanned and prepared these, they remained
the property of the men, and when the buffalo skins
became articles of commerce with the white people, the
men took charge of the sale of them, and of the proceeds
of such sales.
As the tipis were made of skins they were the
property of the women, as were the clothing of herself
and her children, until they were grown up, and she
owned the robes used in the family, except those
belonging to the man and grown sons, and all the
domestic implements and utensils.
All the children that were the issue of her body
belonged to her until they had arrived at puberty in the
sense that her right to their possession took precedence
over that of her man, their father. She is their mother
(hunkupi) and they hold her as their ancestor (hunkake).
Her right to control her children took precedence over
that of her husband until the sons became of an age w
hen they could be instructed in the arts of the chase
and of war, when the father took charge of them, but in
the tipi they were still subordinate to the mother until
they arrived at the age of manhood.
In the management of all ordinary domestic work
the woman's authority was supreme. If she left a man her
claim to her rights was unimpaired, but if her man
disputed it she could maintain it only by the help of
her friends whose aid depended on their ability to
enforce their wishes could permit her to take such as
she wished and he granted. But if a woman was thrown
away or given away for punishment, she lost all rights
to all her property and her children, except babies, but
the man did not have the same loss.
Walker, p.41-47.
|