INSTITUTE OF SOCIAL ANTHROPOLOGY — PUBLICATION NO. 9 



tude 22° to latitude 19° S. Presumably, they were 

 in this general area when first discovered by the 

 Spaniards. The Guana at that time consisted of 

 the following subdivisions: Layana, Niguecac- 

 temic, Tereno, Echoaladi, and the Kinikinao 

 (Metraux, 1946, vol. 1, pp. 239-240). Estimates 

 of the total Guana population vary. At the end 

 of the eighteenth century Aguirre and Azara gave 

 the total Guana population as 8,200. The Mbaya 

 also claimed this part of the Chaco as their home 

 but, owing to their nomadic habits, ranged over a 

 wider territory stretching all the way from the 

 present site of Asuncion to where Corumbii now 

 stands. Labrador estimated the Mbaya as num- 

 bering between 7,000 and 8,000. During this 

 period the Mbaya were composed of the following 

 subdivisions: Cadiquegodf (Caduveo), Guetiade- 

 godf, Apacachodegodegi, Lichagotegodi, Eyibo- 

 godegi, Gotocogegodegl, and Beutuebo (ibid., vol. 

 1, pp. 217-218). 



Early writers, imbued with medieval concep- 

 tions of political status, claimed to see in this inter- 

 dependence a relationship of lord and serf after the 

 European pattern. This view on tlie basis of their 

 own evidence appears exaggerated. A thorough- 

 going system of social stratification based on 

 cultural differences usually implies some degree 

 of political unity and marked distinctions in status 

 and social functions. The Mbaya never achieved 

 political unity as a tribe nor did they exercise 

 organized authority over the Guana as a whole. 

 To the end of the Mbaya remained organized on a 

 "band" basis. The Guana always had their own 

 lands and villages, their own social organization 

 and chiefs. The fact that the Mbaya chiefs mar- 

 ried Guana women of rank seems to imply a de- 

 gree of equality between the chiefly classes of the 

 two peoples. 



Through intermarriage Mbaya chiefs are said 

 to have become chiefs of Guana settlements. Just 

 how this political domination was achieved is not 

 made clear. It is stated that the Guana had fe- 

 male chiefs and that marriage with a Mbaya 

 chief gave him rights over his wife's people. 

 There is some doubt that the Guana had female 

 chiefs — the Terena, for instance, stoutly deny this. 

 Even if this were true, it is not clear how a female 

 chief's husband could usurp his wife's position 

 in a tribe where female chieftainship was a cul- 

 turally defined rule. ^Vlien we learn that the 



Mbaya chief's privileges were restricted to the im- 

 mediate relatives and following of the Guana 

 woman and could be exercised only by himself and 

 his close relatives, the purely political aspects of 

 the relationship are diminished. The suggestion 

 made here is that the Mbaya-Guana relationship 

 was essentially a symbiotic intei'dependence based 

 on kinship. Certain Mbaya were linked to cer- 

 tain Guana through consanguineal and affinal kin- 

 ship bonds. In this relationship the Mbaya, held 

 a superior position because of the prestige aris- 

 ing from their military power. The Guana, as a 

 whole, however, maintained their political and 

 economic autonomy. 



Among the Mbaj'a, on the other hand, emphasis 

 on warfare had alreadj' led to the development 

 of rank based on war honors and the possession 

 of slaves or war captives. Among the chiefs a 

 distinction was made between those who received 

 this position through birth and those who re- 

 ceived it through favor. Between these two chiefly 

 grades and the slaves were the great body of 

 hunters and warriors. Although there is nothing 

 particularly strange in the fact that the warlike 

 Mbaya had slaves, there seems to be, however, a 

 functional relationship between the Mbaya desire 

 to capture women and children and the Mbaya 

 practice of infanticide. 



The Mbaya custom of abortion and infanticide 

 has been stressed by many writers. The Caduveo 

 today explain these practices by saying that a 

 mother is forbidden to have sexual intercourse 

 while nursing her child and rather than forego 

 sex and run the risk of losing the affections of her 

 husband a woman avoids having children. The 

 Caduveo go further and explain that they had, 

 in the past, to capture women and children in order 

 to maintain their numbers. One would expect 

 that powerful sanctions would be necessary to en- 

 force compliance with a rule prohibiting sexual 

 intercourse during the nursing period. Beyond 

 saying that it is bad for the parents, the Caduveo 

 make no explicit mention of the consequences re- 

 sulting from the breaking of this rule. It may be 

 that this rule is sanctioned, at least partly, by 

 the economic circumstances which, among a no- 

 madic hunting people, make numerous small chil- 

 dren a burden upon their parents. The distinc- 

 tions of rank, the possession of war captives as 

 slaves, as well as the symbiotic relationship be- 



