The Determination of Age

This is a suitable place to say a word about the method I adopted to ascertain the ages of the Todas. Like all people at a low stage of culture, the Todas are very uncertain about their ages, though their knowledge is more accurate than that of many peoples. Every Toda knows, however, whether he is older or younger than another, this fact determining the [[481]]names and salutations they give to one another, as we shall see in the next chapter. A few of the younger men seemed to have accurate knowledge of their ages, and building up on this basis, and with a knowledge of the relative ages of the different members of the community, it became possible to arrive at estimates which probably do not deviate very widely from the correct ages; even in the case of the older people, I do not believe that my estimated ages are likely to be more than five years out in any case. As already mentioned (see p. [416]), the Todas make use, in the estimation of age, of their belief in the eighteen-year period of a flower, and the ages so estimated in a few cases agreed fairly with those arrived at in other ways.

Among those now alive, it seemed that the usual time which separates the birth of two children of the same mother is about three years, and I have taken this time as the rule in estimating the ages of all those whose names are included in the genealogies. Similarly, so far as I could tell, women begin to bear children when about eighteen to twenty years of age.

The ages of the four groups given in the table on p. [474] were calculated on the assumptions that a woman had her first child when twenty years old, and that the interval between the births of two children was three years.

The oldest Toda now living is Kiugi (57). He looks an extremely old man, and is said by the Todas to be nearly a hundred years of age. There is evidence which makes it probable that he is at least eighty or ninety. Kòrs, the father of Kiugi, performed the pursütpimi ceremony before the birth of Teitchi (52) (see p. [564]). Teitchi’s grandson, Kuriolv, is now about fifty-four years of age. When Kòrs gave the bow and arrow he may have been only a young boy, and if we assume that he was fifteen years old, that Teitchi and Pareivan had their first children when twenty years old, and that the interval between the birth of Pilzink and that of Pareivan was six years, it would make the age of Kòrs, if he were still alive, 115. If Kiugi was born when his father was twenty years old, it would make his age ninety-five. If, on the other hand, we assume that Kòrs gave the bow and arrow when [[482]]only ten years of age, and that he did not have his first child till he was thirty, it would make Kiugi’s age eighty. Kiugi’s eldest child, if alive, would now probably be about sixty, and this supports the view that the lowest possible estimate of Kiugi’s age is eighty, and he is not improbably a good deal older. [[483]]

[1] See Reports of the Cambridge Anthropological Expedition to Torres Straits, vol. v, p. 122. [↑]

[2] For a few cases in which an individual is entered as the child of a man who is known not to be his real father, see p. [534]. In such a case I have assigned the child to the parent who is regarded as the legal father by the Todas. [↑]

[3] Grigg’s Manual of the Nilagiri District, 1880, Appendix No. 17, p. xlviii. [↑]

[4] Ibid. App. No. 20, p. lx. [↑]

[5] Letters on the Neilgherries, London, 1829, p. 75. [↑]

[6] Madras Journ. of Lit. and Science, 1836, vol. viii, p. 86. [↑]

[7] Ibid., 1848, vol. xv, p. 1. [↑]

[8] Manual, p. 27. [↑]

[9] Proc. Camb. Philos. Soc., 1904, vol. xii, p. 481. [↑]

[10] Specimens of South Indian Dialects, Mangalore, 1873. [↑]

[11] Pp. 194–5. [↑]

[[Contents]]

CHAPTER XXI

KINSHIP

The system of kinship was studied chiefly by means of the genealogies. The Todas are sufficiently intelligent to be able to give satisfactory definitions of their terms expressing different kinds of relationship, but the genealogies were very useful in checking these definitions and in working out several points in detail.

The Toda system of kinship is of the kind known as classificatory with several interesting special features. Perhaps the most important of these is the use of the same terms for mother’s brother and father-in-law on the one hand, and for father’s sister and mother-in-law on the other hand. This is a natural consequence of the regulation which ordains that the proper marriage for a man is one with the daughter either of his mother’s brother or father’s sister.

Another important feature of the Toda system is the existence of two well-marked groups of terms expressing bonds of kinship; one used when speaking of relatives, and the other when speaking to relatives and in exclamations. The latter, which may be regarded as vocative cases of the former, are fewer in number and used in a much more general sense; and if the two are not distinguished, it is easy to understand that one may find only “inextricable confusion in Toda ideas as to relationship.”[1] I will first give a list of kinship terms, together with the forms used in direct address, and the approximate definitions, and these will be followed by a [[484]]discussion of the exact meaning of each term. The vocative forms are enclosed in brackets.

A general name for those of the same clan is annatam, but I am not sure that this is not properly a borrowed word.

In giving a more detailed account of these terms of kinship, it will perhaps be convenient to begin with the relationship of in, or father.

In. A person speaks of his father as “en in,” “my father,” while “his father” would be “tan in.” An in is addressed as aia. These names are applied not only to the father, but also to the father’s brothers, whether they are husbands of the mother or not.

The names in or aia are also given to all the males of the clan (madol) who are of the same generation as the father; [[485]]also to the husbands of the sisters of the mother, sisters here including both own sisters and clan-sisters, i.e., to the husbands of all those who are of the same clan and generation as the mother. Elder brothers of the father (either own brothers or clan-brothers) are often addressed as perudaia, while younger brothers are called karudaia, and in speaking of such men the expressions “en in perud” and “en in karud” would be used. When a man speaks of one of his more remote fathers, and it may be doubtful of whom he is speaking, he may add the name of the man; thus Siriar (20) would speak of Paniolv (26), the husband of his mother’s sister, as “Pani in.”

Av. A mother is spoken of as en av or tan av, and addressed as ava. These names are also applied to the wife of a father other than the actual mother, to the sisters of the mother, to the wives of the father’s brothers, and to the sisters of the wife’s father. Every woman of the same clan and generation as the mother is an av. In general the wife of an in is an av. As in the case of the in, a distinction is made between the elder and younger sisters of the mother, the former being addressed as perudava and the latter karudava. Similarly the wife of an elder brother of the father is perudava and of a younger karudava. Such relatives may be spoken of as “en av perud” and “en av karud.”

Mokh and Kugh. Every one whom a man calls in or av calls the man mokh, and every one to whom a woman gives these names calls the woman kugh. In direct address, both mokh and kugh are called ena (? enna).

In speaking of his brother’s children, a man may make clear whether he is speaking of the child of an elder or younger brother; thus he may say “en nòdrvedvain mokh,” “my younger brother’s son.” Mokh is often used as a general term for “child” and may be applied to persons of either sex.

Pian. This name is given to both paternal and maternal grandfathers and to their brothers, certainly in the narrow sense and probably in the wider. Every male of the speaker’s clan of the same generation as the father’s father would certainly be called “en pian.” The brother of the father’s mother is also called pian, but I am doubtful whether the term is used for all the clan-brothers of the father’s mother [[486]]Similarly I am uncertain how far the clan-brothers of the mother’s father and mother’s mother receive this name. A pian is addressed as pia.

Piav. This is the name of both paternal and maternal grandmothers, and in general the wife of a pian is a piav. A piav is addressed as piava.

All those addressed as pian or piav will address the speaker as ena. When speaking of his grandson, a man will say “en mokh pedvai” or “en mokh pedvai mokh,” literally “my born to my son” or “my son born to my son,” and there were no less elaborate terms.

The son of a daughter is called en kugh pedvai mokh, “my daughter who born to son,” taking the words in order, or “my son born to my daughter.” A daughter of a son is called en mokh pedvai kugh, and the daughter of a daughter, en kugh pedvai kugh. Since, however, mokh is often used as a general name for “child,” I believe that this word usually takes the place of kugh, and that in consequence a grandchild of either sex is called en mokh pedvai mokh.

Pevian and peviav. These words for great-grandfather and great-grandmother have a similar wide connotation. The word pef is an ancient term for “great” which is used in some of the magical incantations (see p. [267]).

An. This is the name for elder brother and for all members of the clan of a man or woman who are of the same generation as, and older than, the man or woman. An an is addressed as anna.

Nòdrved. This is the name for younger brother and for all members of the clan of the same generation as, and younger than, the speaker. En nòdrved or nòdrped means literally “my born with.” A nòdrved is addressed as enda.

Egal. A corresponding relative who is of the same age is called en egal and is addressed as egala.

These terms are used both by men and women of and to men.

Akkan. This term is applied by both men and women to an elder sister, and is also given to all female members of the same clan who are of the same generation as, and older than, the speaker. An akkan is addressed as akka. [[487]]

Nòdrvedkugh. A younger sister is spoken of by this name, which is also given to all the female members of the same clan and generation, but younger than the speaker. Such a relative is addressed by the same term as is applied to a younger brother, viz., enda. Two sisters of the same age are egal and egala to one another.

These terms for “brother” and “sister” are also applied to one another by the children of two sisters. Thus a man would call the son of his mother’s sister an, and address him as anna if the latter were older than himself, and would be spoken of by the latter as en nòdrved and addressed as enda. If of the same age they would be egal or egala to one another. Similarly a man addresses the daughter of his mother’s sister as akka or enda according to age. I am doubtful how widely the terms for brotherhood and sisterhood are applied in this case. I do not know whether the children of two women of the same generation in a large clan like that of Kars would call one another brother and sister.

Thus the children of two brothers are brothers and sisters, and the children of two sisters are also brothers and sisters, while, as we shall see shortly, the children of brother and sister receive another name. The children of two sisters belong to different clans except in those cases in which the sisters have married men of the same clan. Thus a man may have brothers and sisters in several different clans.

Mun. This is the name of the mother’s brother, of the father’s sister’s husband, and of the wife’s father. The last is also spoken of as paiol together with other relatives of the wife. In the case of the orthodox Toda marriage, in which a man marries the daughter of his mother’s brother, or of his father’s sister, the mun is at the same time both wife’s father and either mother’s brother or father’s sister’s husband, but the wife’s father is still called mun even when a man marries a woman to whom he is unrelated.

The term mun is not only applied by a man to the own brothers of his mother, but also to her clan-brothers. When a man has many mun, he may show to which he is [[488]]referring by mentioning his name; thus Siriar (20) would say “Karsüln mun” if he referred to this relative, the husband of his father’s sister, and he might speak in the same way of a clan-brother of his mother.

A distinction is often made between older and younger mun; thus, if a man’s mother had two brothers, the elder would be called en mun perud and the younger en mun karud. A mun is addressed as mama.

Mumi. This is the name of the father’s sister, of the wife of a mother’s brother, and of the wife’s mother, the terms brother and sister being again used in a wide sense. In general, the wife of a mun is a mumi. A mumi is addressed as mimia.

Manmokh. A person would apply the term manmokh to his sister’s son and his wife’s brother’s son. It is a term reciprocal to mun in so far as this term is one for mother’s brother and father’s sister’s husband. I am not quite certain whether it would be used for a son-in-law who was not also a sister’s son, but I am almost certain that this would be done.

The term is also applied to the sons of clan-sisters, and when used in this more distant way a distinction is sometimes made. En manmokh would mean “my (own) sister’s son,” Em manmokh, literally “our sister’s son,” would be used for children of a more distant sister.

Mankugh is used in exactly the same way as manmokh for sister’s daughter, &c.

Matchuni. This is the term applied to one another by the children, both male and female, of brother and sister. While the children of two brothers are brothers or sisters (an, egal, akka or nòdrved) and the children of two sisters are also brothers and sisters, the children of a brother and sister are matchuni. In other words, the children of an individual’s mother’s brother or of his father’s sister are the matchuni of the individual.

When a man addresses his male matchuni he calls him anna, egala or enda, according to their relative ages. Similarly when a woman addresses her female matchuni, she calls her akka, egala or enda, according to age. [[489]]

When a man addresses his female matchuni, he calls her either tazmokhia or kughia (see below). He gives her the former name because he is allowed to marry her; she is a woman who might normally be his wife and he therefore addresses her as wife.

Similarly a woman addresses her male matchuni as òlia; she calls him husband because he may become her husband.

As in the case of other relationships, a man may define more exactly of whom he is speaking when he refers to a matchuni, and may say instead en munkugh, the daughter of my mun. Two kinship terms are thus used which resemble one another closely, but have very different meanings:—en munkugh, my uncle’s daughter, and en mankugh, my sister’s daughter.

Òl, husband. A woman speaks of her husband as en òl and addresses him as òlia.

Kotvai and tazmokh, wife. A man speaks of his wife as en kotvai, and addresses her as tazmokhia.

Paiol. This is a general term for the male relatives of the wife. It is applied especially to the wife’s father, the wife’s brothers, and the brothers of the wife’s father.

It seemed that this term should only properly be applied to the near relatives of the wife. Those whom the wife would address as aia, anna, or enda, because members of her clan, need not be called paiol by the husband.

Paiol is a reciprocal term, and it is therefore applied by a man to the daughter’s husband, the sister’s husband, and to the husband of the brother’s daughter.

A paiol is addressed as anna, egala, or enda, according to age.

Motvilth. This term is the equivalent of daughter-in-law and is applied by a man to his son’s wife. A woman is also the motvilth of the brothers of her husband’s father. A motvilth is addressed as ena.

There did not seem to be any brief term for the sister of a wife, and a man would speak of her as en kotvai akkan if older, or as en kotvai nòdrved if younger than the wife.

Sometimes the Todas add to some of the kinship names [[490]]the word potch, which is said to have the meanings “begetting” or “begotten.” I met with this especially in the lamentations used at funerals. A man would say, “en potch aia”—“O my father which begot me”; “en potch anna”—“O my elder brother begotten with me.” For a younger brother, however, this word would not be used; a man would not say, “en potch nòdrved ia,” because ved has the same significance as potch, nòdrved meaning also “born with” or “begotten with.”

Every male of a man’s own clan is either his pian; his in; his an, egal, or nòdrved; his mokh, or his mokh pedvai mokh. In most cases a clan consists of several families, and these families may be unrelated to one another so far as the evidence from the genealogical record goes. Nevertheless, every Toda knows exactly the proper kinship terms to apply to all the members of his clan. I inquired in detail into the basis of this knowledge in the case of the Taradrol, consisting of six pòlm or divisions. All the members of each pòlm trace their descent from a man whose name is known, and the pedigrees of the six pòlm are given in the genealogical tables 20 to 25.

It was known that three of these pòlm were closely related to one another, and that the other three were also closely related. The following table expresses the relationship in the first case:—

|
| | |
♂ ♂ TEITHI
| | |
NASIDZ PERATUTHI (See 20)
| |
(See 22) (See 21)

It was not perfectly certain whether Teithi and the two men whose names were not remembered were own brothers, but it was known that they were closely related and of the same generation. They were certainly clan-brothers and possibly own brothers. The kinship names applied by members of the three pòlm to one another were all in accordance with this scheme; thus, there was no one living in these three pòlm whom Siriar (20) called aia; he would have given this name to Nasidz or Peratuthi if they had been [[491]]alive. He calls Arthothi and Parkeidi anna; they are the sons of Peratuthi, who was of the same generation as Siriar’s father. The following are called mokh or ena:—Püldenir, Keinodz, Idrshkwòdr (21), Polgar, Pundu, Keinmuv, and Pushtikudr (22), although at least one of these men is older than Siriar, and several others are approximately of the same age. Similarly, Muners (21) is the mokh pedvai mokh, or grandson of Siriar.

The other three pòlm of the Taradr clan are known to be related in a similar way: Kiusthvan (23), Pachievan (24), and Pungut (25) being either own brothers or men closely related and of the same generation. I was thus able to ascertain definitely how each member of the first three pòlm knew the appropriate name to be given to members of these families, and similarly how members of the other three pòlm knew the exact terms of kinship to apply to one another.

Each member of the first three pòlm also knew, however, the proper kinship terms to apply to members of the other three pòlm, although I could not obtain, and there seemed to be no record of, the way in which the two groups of families were connected. Thus Siriar addresses as aia Paners and his brothers (23) and Irkiolv (24). He addresses as anna: Teitukhen, Idjkudr and Kandu (23), Tòleidi, Nertiners, Mogai, Teimad and Orguln (24), and Kudeners and his brother (25). The children of these men are the mokh of Siriar, and are addressed by him as ena.

The explanation seems to be that the mode of relationship is handed down from generation to generation; thus Teithi, the grandfather of Siriar, called Kiusthvan (23) brother, and in consequence Ircheidi and Paners, their sons, also call one another brother, and so Siriar, the son of Ircheidi, knows that he has to call Paners father. In this way a man would know the correct term to apply to every member of his clan, though the links by which their pedigrees are connected may have been completely forgotten.

I also worked out the relationship of the different divisions of the Kuudr clan in the same way, and may perhaps give the record briefly. [[492]]

Teitnir (52) calls the following Kuudr men aia:—Mutevan (52), Punatvan (53), Keitas (55), Tüliners (56), Kiugi (57), Tütners, Etamudri, Madsu, and Koboners (58), Ishkievan (60).

He calls the following anna:—Kuriolv and Ivievan (52), Targners (53), Keinkursi (54), and Mudriners (57). The following are his nòdrved, and are called by him enda:—Kwelthipush and his brothers, Piliar and Piliag (52), Pungusivan, Tevò, Karov and Pòl (53), Pöteners (54), Sinar and Katsog (55), Erai, Kil, Kanokh (56), Onadj and Kwòdrthotz (57), Kishkar and Tormungudr (59). All the sons of these brothers are the mokh of Teitnir.

In the above list Teitnir omitted Tikievan and Tushtkudr (56), who according to the genealogies are his pia or grandfathers, while their sons, though much younger than Teitnir, are his fathers, and are addressed by him as aia.

The other kinship terms are used in the same wide way. If a man’s mother belonged to Kuudr all those Kuudr men would be his mun who were the an, egal, or nòdrved of his mother; and all the children of those men would be his matchuni.

The terms used for the relatives of a wife are also used for the corresponding relatives of a sedvaitazmokh. This is the name of the woman in the Toda institution according to which a woman consorts with one or more men in addition to her husband or husbands (see p. [526]). The man, or mokhthodvaiol, calls the fathers and brothers of the woman paiol, and calls her father mun and her mother mumi.

Relatives are often spoken of by the Todas in a way that defines their relation to the speaker more exactly than is usual in the classificatory system. Thus, a man may call his brother’s son “en nodrvedvain mokh”—“my younger brother’s son”; or he may speak of his wife’s elder sister as “en kotvai akka,” an abbreviation of en kotvai tan akka—“my wife her elder sister.” Similarly, a wife’s younger sister may be called “en kotvai nòdrved.”

It seemed to me that the Todas afford an interesting example of a people who are beginning to modify the classificatory system of kinship in a direction which distinctly approaches the descriptive system. The essential features [[493]]of the system of kinship are those known as classificatory, but the Todas have various means of distinguishing between the near and distant relatives to whom the same kinship term is applied. Two examples of this have already been given; the son of an own sister may be called “my sister’s son,” while the son of a clan sister is called “our sister’s son,” and the own brother of a mother is simply called mun, while in the case of a clan brother of the mother, the name of the man is added. Further, a term which is definitely descriptive may be used in the examples quoted above.

The Todas have reached a stage of mental development in which it seems that they are no longer satisfied with the nomenclature of a purely classificatory system, and have begun to make distinctions in their terminology for near and distant relatives.

Another point of interest about the Toda system is that the two sets of kinship terms—those used in direct address and those used when speaking of a relative—do not correspond closely with one another.

The terms used in direct address are few in number compared with the kinship terms used when speaking of a relative. Brothers of all kinds, matchuni and some paiol (brothers-in-law) are all addressed as anna, egala or enda, according to age. Children, grandchildren, sisters’ sons and sons-in-law are all addressed as ena. If exclusive attention were paid to the kinship terms used in address we should seem to have a kinship system which is almost wholly based on relative ages and generations, all other distinctions being ignored.

The Toda system distinguishes widely between elder and younger members of the family and clan. This feature, which is of very general occurrence in connexion with the classificatory system, has been highly developed by the Todas, and their system differs from any other with which I am acquainted in having a special term for relatives of the same age.

When two members of a clan or two men related in other ways address one another as brother, the terms employed depend altogether on their relative ages, and are not influenced by the relative seniority of the branches of the family or clan to which they belong. [[494]]

The Toda system appears to be closely related to that of the Dravidians of Southern India. In several cases the names for certain kin are identical with or closely resemble those of other South Indian languages.

The three most characteristic features of the Toda system are (i.) the use of the same term for mother’s brother and father-in-law, &c.; (ii.) the marked development of vocative forms of the kinship terms; (iii.) the marked development of distinctions according to age. These three features are also found in Tamil, and as far as my information goes in Telugu and Canarese. The Toda system appears to be a simplified form of the Tamil system with many points of identity. The resemblance between the Toda and the Tamil names seems certainly to be closer than that between the Toda names and those of the Telugus and Canarese.

I do not wish here to consider these resemblances and differences in any detail, but in the Table on the opposite page I have given a list of those kinship terms in which the Todas resemble other inhabitants of Southern India. The Tamil terms I owe to Mr. K. Rangachari of Madras; the others I have taken from Morgan’s System of Consanguinity and Affinity of the Human Race.

[[Contents]]