-
14. Cem
- The University of Alabama Press
- Chapter
- Additional Information
14 Cemís Alienable or Inalienable; To Give or To Keep Since the original formulations by Bronislav Malinowski (1992 [1922]) and Marcel Mauss (1990 [1925]), grounded on the ethnology of Trobriand islanders, reciprocity has been widely regarded by anthropologists as a central and universal feature of social systems (Mosko 2000; Sykes 2005:38–64). I bring Oceania and Melanesia to the fore in this section because (a) the theory of reciprocity is well developed in this region; (b) I am more familiar with the literature; and also because (c) it involves islands and archipelagos.The central tenet of reciprocity is that a valuable item is exchanged or traded for another one of similar value or worth. Payment in kind for gifts received could be and often was delayed, but the idea is that there is a standing obligation to repay. In 1992, and building on her previous work, Annette Weiner (1985, 1992) proposed that not reciprocity but rather “keeping-while-giving” was the universal principle governing social life; that there are things that cannot be given and that must be kept out of circulation—that is, these are inalienable possessions. At the same time, other things regarded as commodities could and would be reciprocally exchanged. The validity of Weiner’s (1992) “giving-for-keeping” theory, when confronted with ethnographic data and facts, especially in Oceania, has invited intensive discussions among anthropologists (for an in-depth critique, see Mosko 2000).The specifics of the critiques notwithstanding , there are agreements among anthropologists of the heuristic value in considering both reciprocity and “keeping-for-giving” in analyzing native exchange systems. The discussion in the previous section about the circulation of cemís through inheritance and especially as gifts to foreign caciques raises questions regarding the nature of the exchange.Theft also arises in this inquiry precisely because it implies coming into possession of something that is not yours to keep. I assumed in this discussion that the principle in operation of gifts from deceased caciques to foreign ones was that of reciprocity, albeit delayed. I noted that a significant portion of a deceased chief’s wealth would be gifted to foreigners, and would be repaid at a later date upon their deaths. I suggested that the foreigners were likely allied to the deceased cacique either through marriage or through a guaitiao pact (which not always but often included women/wife exchanges). The Spanish neither recorded the motivations behind such transactions and exchanges, nor offered any details about the notions or ideology that the natives held about the acts of giving, 110 Chapter 14 taking, and keeping. What is clear from the sixteenth-century Spanish writings is that (1) a good part of the estate was given away by the surviving kin of the dead cacique, thus keeping them in circulation (alienable), and (2) that some “jewels” and things most valued by the dead cacique would be buried with him, thus permanently taken out of circulation (inalienable).The sixteenth-century chroniclers did not mention what specific things the heir to the office of cacique and, presumably his or her immediate kin, would retain or keep. Other than the duho, a higüero (or calabash) water container, and cassava bread with fruits, no other burial items were described by the Spanish, and as already noted, the archaeology of burials in Hispaniola and Puerto Rico has so far failed to recover any rich cacique burials , precisely because of the very few offerings and artifacts interred with them. Oviedo did mention one other burial “accompaniment” regarding one specific cacique .This is where both the principal wife (athebeane neque) and a second wife of paramount cacique Behechio of the Jaraguá chiefdom were interred alive with him when he died. But even here Oviedo (1944 [1]:243–244) is clear in stating that such a human sacrifice “was not generalized in the whole island” of Hispaniola. Despite this poverty of ethnohistoric detail (in contrast to, say, Trobriand, Maori, or Melanesian ethnographies), I think it is quite reasonable to assume that the heir and his or her kindred would indeed keep some of those things—things that simply could not be gifted. It is a moot question which things that were under the control of the deceased cacique were “his” to bequeath, and which may have been collectively controlled by his family group or lineage and thus for them to decide if and how they would be distributed. I have proposed that among the valuables to be given as well...