Supplement To Exploring Relationships Between Craft Distributions, Language and Geographical Distance in The Upper Sepik and Border Mountains of Papua New Guinea
0 оценок0% нашли этот документ полезным (0 голосов)
63 просмотров7 страниц
Sample, population estimates and an assessment of data relating to dialectical variation.
Оригинальное название
Supplement to Exploring relationships between craft distributions, language and geographical distance in the upper Sepik and Border Mountains of Papua New Guinea
0 оценок0% нашли этот документ полезным (0 голосов)
63 просмотров7 страниц
Supplement To Exploring Relationships Between Craft Distributions, Language and Geographical Distance in The Upper Sepik and Border Mountains of Papua New Guinea
Exploring relationships between craft distributions, language and geographical
distance in the upper Sepik and Border Mountains of Papua New Guinea: Sample, population estimates and an assessment of data relating to dialectical variation.
Andrew Fyfe and Jill Bolton
The sample and population estimates 92 string bags make up the sample (table 1). Small amulet bags were omitted because their limited size greatly restricted the range of SBCNs and SBCPs able to be used for their creation. Bags from poorly sampled language divisions and areas separated from the larger sample by a region occupied by communities of an unrepresented language group were also excluded to provide a relatively continuous and even distribution across space. The sample comes from 33 settlements. 91 of the bags were collected between 1959 and 1982. One was collected in 1930.
Table 1. List of string bags with source settlement name and object identity, language attribution of source settlement, museum and museums accession number, year of collection and collectors name.
Settlement Language/ Dialect Museum/ Accession Number 1
Date collected/collector Ambremaki-a Abau DR PM/E11614 1969/G. Gerrits Ambremaki-b Abau DR PM/E11615 1969/G. Gerrits Ambremaki-c Abau DR PM/E11629 1969/G. Gerrits Ambremaki-d Abau DR PM/E11630 1969/G. Gerrits Antibi Abau UR Amst./3947-10 1968/B. Craig Auya 2 Yuri Gttingen/3641 1969-73/H. Peter Baio-a Abau DR PM/79.1.298 1972/B. Craig Baio-b Abau DR PM/79.1.301 1972/B. Craig Baiwai Abau DR PM/79.1.299 1972/B. Craig Bambledian Abau UR PM/79.1.319 1972/B. Craig Bifrou-a Abau DR PM/E7490 1969/B. Craig Bifrou-b Abau DR Sydney/E64604 1969/B. Craig Bifrou-c Abau DR Sydney/E88852 1982/M. Mackenzie Bifrou-d Abau DR Sydney/E88860 1982/M. Mackenzie Bifrou-e Abau DR Sydney/E88861 1982/M. Mackenzie Bifrou-f Abau DR Sydney/E88862 1982/M. Mackenzie Bisiaburu-a Abau Central PM/E2598 1968/B. Craig Bisiaburu-b Abau Central Sydney/ E64305 1968/B. Craig
1 Museum identities: Amst. (Amsterdam): Tropen Museum; Basel: Museum der Kulturen; Berlin: Ethnologisches Museum; Gttingen: Institut und Sammlung fr Vlkerkunde der Universitt Gttingen; Leiden: Rijksmuseum voor Volkenkunde; PM (Port Moresby): PNG National Museum; Sydney: Australian Museum; Vienna: Museum fr Vlkerkunde.
2
Buna-a Abau Central Berlin/VI 49782 1968/B. Craig Buna-b Abau Central Berlin/VI 49784 1968/B. Craig Dabrau-a Awun PM/6004 c.1970/ A. & H. Kelm Dabrau-b Awun Berlin/VI 50695 c.1970/ A. & H. Kelm Dabrau-c Awun Berlin/VI 50701 c.1970/ A. & H. Kelm Dieru-a Abau Central Sydney/E88869 1982/M. Mackenzie Dieru-b Abau Central Sydney/E88870 1982/M. Mackenzie Dieru-c Abau Central Sydney/E88871 1982/M. Mackenzie Esyu Abau UR Berlin/VI 49837 1968/B. Craig Fongwinam-a Yuri Sydney/E64303 1968/B. Craig Fongwinam-b Yuri PM/E2649 1968/B. Craig Fongwinam-c Yuri Berlin/VI 49887 1968/B. Craig Fongwinam-d Yuri Gttingen/3643 1968/B. Craig Hogru-a Abau Central Leiden/4477-321 1969/B. Craig Hogru-b Abau Central PM/E7489 1969/B. Craig Hogru-c Abau Central Berlin/VI 49929 1969/B. Craig Hogru-d Abau Central Berlin/VI 49993 1969/B. Craig Iburu Abau Central Leiden/4477-327 1969/B. Craig Isagu Abau UR Sydney/E64315 1969/B. Craig Kambriap-a Yuri Vienna/148884 1969-73/H. Peter Kambriap-b Yuri Vienna/148890 1969-73/H. Peter Kambriap-c Yuri Vienna/148894 1969-73/H. Peter Kambriap-d Yuri Vienna/148899 1969-73/H. Peter Kambriap-e Yuri Vienna/148900 1969-73/H. Peter Kwieftim-a Ak PM/E5984 c.1970/ A. & H. Kelm Kwieftim-b Ak Berlin/VI 50702 c.1970/ A. & H. Kelm Kwieftim-c Ak Berlin/VI 50705 c.1970/ A. & H. Kelm Kwieftim-d Ak Berlin/VI 50706 c.1970/ A. & H. Kelm Kwieftim-e Ak Berlin/VI 50707 c.1970/ A. & H. Kelm Mahani Abau Central Leiden/4477-328 1969/B. Craig Miniaburu Abau Central PM/79.1.285 1969/B. Craig Mukudami-a Namie Lawo Leiden/4477-325 1969/B. Craig Mukudami-b Namie Lawo Sydney/E64601 1969/B. Craig Mukwasi-a Abau Central Sydney/E64603 1969/B. Craig Mukwasi-b Abau Central Berlin/VI 50294 1969/B. Craig Naum-a Namie Wiyari Leiden/4477-322 1969/B. Craig Naum-b Namie Wiyari Leiden/4477-323 1969/B. Craig Naum-c Namie Wiyari Leiden/4477-324 1969/B. Craig Naum-d Namie Wiyari Sydney/E64597 1969/B. Craig Naum-e Namie Wiyari Sydney/E64598 1969/B. Craig
In terms of the estimated aggregated population combining the language groups, the ratio between string bags and people is approximately 1/100. Some settlements are considerably better represented than others but, by and large, proportions for the languages reflect those of relative estimated population figures (Fyfe 2009b: 96, table 9.3). One adjustment can be made to the figure of 4,500 given for the Abau. This
4
figure was based on Laycocks data (1973: 56, note 3) Laycock provided an adjusted figure of 4545 for 1970 based on census figures recorded between 1966 and 1971. 2 It is likely that aggregated census district figures were used by Laycock rather than those for individual Abau settlements as only these data are usually provided in the government censuses of that time. Taking into account both 1980 census figures for Abau settlements (cited in Martin 1981: 211) and the PNG Department of District Administrations 1968 figures for the Green River subdistrict, 4,317 and 3993 respectively, the figure of 4500 appears too high. The 1968 figure, an aggregate of the three census divisions with Abau settlements also include several non-Abau settlements, one of which, Usari, is inhabited by a lowland Yuri speaking population. A comparison of the 1980 figures with other settlement specific census figures taken during two patrols in 1973 reveal that for the nine settlements included in both figures an overall population increase of 13 percent had occurred over the intervening period (Kendorop 1973). 3 Lower figures exist for eight of the nine settlements and therefore it is unlikely that the differences are due to the common movement of people between Abau settlements reported by patrol officers in the late 1960s. 4 Therefore a population of between 3,500 and 4,000 appears more accurate.
Estimates of dialect populations are more problematic but the data suggest the poorest sample for any language/dialect category in terms of ratios between bags and population was that from Abau Up-River dialect settlements (n = 4). 5 The best is Ak (n = 5), although there are only one hundred speakers and they inhabit a single settlement. The second largest sample is that for Yuri (n = 32) and in this regard the language group provide the largest number of bags beyond a figure appropriately reflecting the overall bag to population ratio. Most census figures during the period place the Yuri population around 1,200 but these figures often omit Usari and Auyingarap, the latter being located in [West] Papua very close to the border. The population appears to have remained fairly constant since the late 1950s and a figure between 1000 and 1500 is certain. With a mind to include as many bags as possible, the number of bags chosen (15) reflected the upper end of this scale. Two Yuri settlements, Fongwinam (n = 11) and Kambriap (n = 15) are the best represented settlements in the whole sample. Therefore a number reflecting average ratios across the other groups was achieved by selecting an appropriate number from those two settlements. As available census data closest to the period in which the collections were made have Kambriap and Fongwinam as having a slightly larger population (Rigg 1973), five were selected for the former and four from the latter.
Naum (n =10) is the settlement with the third largest sample. As this is the only settlement representing the Namie/Wiyari dialect, and as the total Namie sample conforms to the overall bag to population ratio, it was decided to include all Naum bags.
2 The census figures usually include absentees. 3 The 1973 census figures are part of a fragment from an otherwise missing patrol report. 4 Figures for five Abau settlements taken in 1963 and 1967 also indicate a steady increase in population during that period (Plummer 1967a). Plummer (1967b) and Mekea (1967) report a high level of migration occurring between Abau settlements and claim that this contributed to significant fluctuations in settlement populations. 5 As estimates for dialect populations during the time in which the collections were made are difficult to determine, due to lack of individual settlement figures, proportions reflect mean string bag number per language group populations.
5
Method: Language A matrix of linguistic distance between individual bags was constructed using Steers seven point scale of linguistic relatedness (2005: 8, table 2). Steer also provides measures of relatedness between the six languages (2005: 8, table 3). As stated above, Yuri and Busa are unrelated to the others while three tiers of relatedness exist between the Sepik languages.
SIL data indicate dialectical variation within the Abau, Namie and Yuri languages. Three dialects have been reported for the Yuri: North Central Yuri, Auia-Tarauwi and Usari. Unfortunately, no data are available on these divisions and their membership in term of settlements, although the names for the latter two imply membership by Yuri settlements in the lowland fringe. Consequently, Yuri settlements, which are also spread over a smaller geographical area than are the Sepik languages, are treated as being linguistically analogous.
Data have been provided for putative dialectical divisions within the Abau and Namie language areas. According to the SIL data, Abau has three dialects: Down-River (DR), Central and Up-River (UR). They are positioned sequentially along the course of the Sepik with the DR and UR dialects separated by territory inhabited by communities speaking the Central dialect (Martin 1981: appendix a).
These dialects were determined both by percentages of shared cognates and information concerning perceived language affinities. The surveys used a standard SIL wordlist of core vocabulary (SILSW) in 12 settlements and a shortened version (SILSVSW) in 19. 6 Only one DR settlement (Wagu) was included in the SILSW survey.
The questionnaire of perceived language affinities was undertaken in 17 Abau settlements, although people were questioned about the relationships between their settlements language and the languages of 28 other settlements (Martin 1981: 224, table 7).
Pairwise matrices created from both sets of cognate percentages were permuted to show settlements with the highest cognate percentages nearest the middle of the diagonal with the lowest towards the end (Martin 1981: 221-22, tables 5 & 6). The matrix generally indicates a cline with minimal support for any particular boundaries. However, the subjective data generally support three groupings (Martin 1981: 224, table 7).
In terms of the SILSVSW data, when paired with either DR or UR settlements, the Central dialect settlements averaged 86 percent cognates. DR and UR pairings averaged 80.5 percent. Given Crowleys (1992: 170) range of 81 percent of core vocabulary or more to indicate a shared language 80.5 percent is very low. Calculations made with the SILSVSW matrix scores also show significant variation in average within-dialect pairings cognate rates: DR = 91, C = 92 and UR = 82 percent.
6 The SILSW consists of 106 pronouns and common verbs, adjectives and nouns. This list is provided by Feldpausch and Feldpausch (1999: appendices a). Martins SILSVSW list includes the first 27 words of the SILSW. Six unspecified words were omitted from the SILSW by Martin (1981: 220.) due to their being deemed unreliable. Two words of the SILSVSW were similarly omitted.
6
Martin (1981: 200-21) points out the strongest relationship between UR settlement Idam 2 (Antibi) and others is with five belonging to the Central dialect settlements and that this indicates a recent migration of this community, or a segment of this community, from the latter region. Strong anecdotal evidence for a recent trend of migration upstream is provided by Craig (e.g. 2008: 40-41) and this is also a likely cause of the weaker linguistic relationships between UR settlements.
The SIL Namie survey undertaken by Feldpausch & Feldpausch (1999) is comprehensive and five small dialect areas are postulated. These dialects correspond with locally recognised social groupings according to which members are strongly identified. Unlike the Abau situation these social groups are named by the Namie populace: Ameni, Edawaki, Ewane, Lawo and Wiyari.
All Namie dialects are clustered around the Sand and Yellow rivers. A map of the dialect areas is provided by Feldpausch & Feldpausch (1999: 13, map 1), although Ewane is omitted. Ewane settlements (Yiwani, Wakau and Aukwom) are situated southwest of the Edawaki dialect area along the lower east bank of the Sand River (Map 1). The SILSW, plus an additional forty word list comprising mostly nouns for local birds and aquatic animals, were used. Namie informants judged the latter as being most idiomatic (Feldpausch & Feldpausch 1999: appendices a & b). The results indicate the dialects as being extremely close: no less than 98 and 83 percent cognate rates respectively.
Both the method and results of the Abau and Namie surveys are somewhat disparate and therefore any determination of relative measures for distances between their respective dialects is problematic. That the Namie idiomatic wordlist cognate percentages are comparable with the Abau SILSVSW cognate percentages indicates that the linguistic distance between Namie dialects is far smaller than that between any Abau dialects. Also, the SILSW percentages for Namie dialect pairings are greater than that typically between settlements within Abau dialect groups. However, the relatively sparse coverage of the SILSW in the Abau area may have resulted in lower between-dialect and within-dialect cognate percentage averages than would otherwise be the case. This, and the fact that Abau speakers commonly identify other communities with whom they share SILSW cognate percentages in the low eighty percent range as having vernacular that is wankain stret (exact), demonstrate that these cognate percentages do not provide a definitive picture. For one thing, it may be that some of the lower cognate percentages are due to the makeup of a typical Abau community lexicon, as the Abau population is large and Abau settlements often comprise groups originating from a number of other Abau settlements. On the other hand, Namie dialects have smaller populations and more stable settlements with restricted spheres of inter-personal exchange. 7 Therefore lexica would certainly be more diverse in Abau settlements. Consequently, for this exercise Namie dialect distance is given the highest score of seven in Steers scale and distance between pairings of Abau dialects was given six.
7 Feldpausch and Feldpausch (1999: 4) report that marriage exchange predominantly occurs between the settlements within a Namie dialect area (Feldpausch & Feldpausch 1999: 4). The Namie also have more permanent settlements than the other lowland groups (Craig 1975).
7
References
Craig, B. 1975. The Art Style of Yellow River, West Sepik District, Papua New Guinea. Baessler-Archiv 23: 417-45.
Craig, B. 2008. Sorcery divination among the Abau of the Idam Valley, Upper Sepik, Papua New Guinea. Journal of Ritual Studies 22, pp. 37-51.
Crowley, T. 1992. An introduction to historical linguistics. Auckland: Oxford University Press.
Feldpausch, T. and B. Feldpausch. (1999). Dialect survey of the Namia language. [Manuscript] 15 p. http://www.sil.org/pacific/png/abstract.asp?id=51809 (accessed May 5, 2010).
Fyfe, A. 2009b. Gender, mobility and population history: exploring material culture distributions in the Upper Sepik and Central New Guinea. PhD dissertation, University of Adelaide, Adelaide.
Kendorop, J. 1973. Patrol Report: Green River No. 3 of 1973/74.
Laycock, D.C. 1973. Sepik Languages: Checklist and Preliminary Classification. Pacific Linguistics B 25. Canberra: Research School of Pacific Studies, Australian National University.
Martin, W. H. 1981. A sociolinguistic survey of Abau, in R. Loving (ed.), Sociolinguistic surveys of Sepik languages, 207-32. Workpapers in Papua New Guinea Languages, 29. Ukarumpa: Summer Institute of Linguistics.
Mekea, P. 1967. Patrol Report: Green River No. 3 of 1966/67.
Plummer, A. 1967a. Patrol Report: Green River No. 1 of 1966/67.
Rigg, K. W. 1973. Patrol Report: Green River No. 6 of 1972/73.
Steer, M. 2005. Linguistic report for the upper Sepik central New Guinea Project. Electronic document, 50 pages, http://www.uscngp.com/papers/linguistic-report- USCNGP.