Ilagiit Research Paper

Ilagiit and Tuq ∏ uraqtuq Inuit understandings of kinship and social : relatedness Paper prepared for First Nations, First Thoughts, Centre of Canadian Studies, University of Edinburgh Christopher G. Trott Native Studies Department, University of Manitoba ©2005

Anthropological understandings of Inuit kinship have focused on the Inuktitut concept of ilagiit, which has generally been understood as equivalent to the English concept of “kindred” (both in extended and more limited forms). This has led researchers to conclude that Inuit kinship pragmatically selects kin out of the range of “kindred” to meet the requirements of flexibility and choice supposedly necessary in a harsh environment. This paper will initially review the use of the term
In a revealing footnote, Bernard Saladin d’Anglure also points to the complexities of illu when he notes that joking, song and sparring partners, particularly those participated in the winter ceremonies, were also illu. The ethnographies are unclear as to whether this is because cross-cousins are chosen to fulfil these roles or whether because the people who fulfil these roles become classified as illu. For reasons that will become apparent later, I am inclined towards the second view. These features are also apparent in Bodenhorn’s discussions of Inupiat kinship relations. She particularly focuses on the formation of whaling crews and the distribution of the products of the hunt which she argues are the concrete basis upon which Inupiat social relations are formed. For Bodenhorn, kinship relations provide an open field of potential relations, which only become concretised when they are activated through co-production and commensality. Those people within the field of potential relations gradually disappear from significance if they are not activated, while those people with whom one has active co-production relations actually become included as kin. This argument is very similar to that advanced by Turner and Wertman for the Shamattawa Cree. Mark Nuttall’s careful study of kinship in Arctic Homeland adds another dimension to the analysis. He carefully places social relations within the relations of people to land through his concept of
The dead exist in the relation which defines a living person with reference to them. The name system can be seen as a reference system that is never heard! The system of names as well as kin terminology designate a single system of classes of relations between positions”15. The overall effect of this system is to create an ongoing set of names in relationship over the land through which people relate to both one another and to the land. This relationship became evident through a number of factors. In one case, I found a young child who had what appeared to be a unique name. Upon enquiry I found that the name came from an old man who had just died in Qanaaq, Greenland. When I asked why they had named the child after someone in Greenland, I was reminded of the 1860-3 migration of Inuit from North Baffin to Greenland16. This name had been lost to North Baffin because of the migration, and when the old man was dying he had asked that his name be returned to its proper land. Similarly, in visiting Pond Inlet I had difficulties talking with Inuit about people in Arcitc Bay because they could not understand whom I was talking about. I found that people were referred to by different names in different communities, the name being used aligned with the social relations of the particular community, and was one of the alternate names each person carried. An analysis of the distribution of names amongst the North Baffin communities of Clyde