I'll be posting links to photos and my attempted transcriptions of the grave inscriptions soon. (The photos have now been put on the hosting website).
Before that, I thought I'd mention the cultural phenomenon of "giving away" (Hokkien: "hO7" / "hoo7") children, as that plays a role in some of the names mentioned in the inscriptions. Some readers will probably be familiar with this custom.
Basic features:
1. This was a very common practice in all parts of my extended family: children were constantly being "given away". We would say of a person who was given away "i1 si3 hO7 e0" ("he/she has been/was/is given"), perhaps adding for the sake of clarity "m7 si7 ka7ki7 sE~1/see~1 e0" ("not given birth to, themselves", i.e. "not a biological child").
2. This giving away could be in two basic forms. Either:
a) "Physically" - i.e. the child left the home of his/her biological parents and went to live in the home of (and was totally brought up by) the new parents he/she had been "given" to
or
b) "In name only" - i.e. the child remained living in the home of (and was totally brought up by) his/her biological parents.
3. When the giving away was actually physical, this was called "kue3 pang5" (literally: "cross/pass room"). If the giving away was in name only, then it was called "pak8 chiu2" (literally: "tie hands").
4. When the giving away was in name only, there were two basic variants:
a. The child behaved AS IF he/she were really the child of the new parents. This means the child addressed his/her new parents as "father" and "mother" ("a0 pa1" and "a0 mak4"); took his/her place within the new family (i.e. was ranked in age along with the other siblings in the new family (as 1st brother, 2nd brother, 3rd brother; 1st sister, 2nd sister, 3rd sister, etc)); and addressed his/her biological parents as "uncle" and "aunt" ("a0 ku7/kim7", "a0 cek4/cim2", or "a0 pEh4/m" as appropriate).
or
b. The child addressed the new parents as "father" and "mother" ("a0 pa1" and "a0 mak4"), but continued to address his/her biological parents ALSO as "father" and "mother", and kept his/her place within the biological family, in terms of ranking.
I suppose all sorts of variants and combinations between these two extremes were also possible. The interesting aspect of all of these is that the child would address a couple who was not his/her biological parents as "father" and "mother", even though he/she did not live with them. Another interesting aspect - for those who continued to address their biological parents as "father" and "mother" - was that such children "had two fathers and two mothers".
5. In almost all cases of "physical" giving away which I know of, the child behaved he/she were really the child of the new parents (i.e. 4a above).
6. I believe that a lot of the reason for this "giving away" was because the child's horoscope would be cast at the time of birth. If it appeared that there was an astrological clash with the biological parents, and that clash was very bad, then the child would be "physically" given away. But if the astrological clash with the parents wasn't too bad, then the child was just given away "in name" only.
7. This giving away was exclusively to relatives. The receiving couple could be quite distant relatives (cousins or 2nd cousins) of one of the biological parents, but they were always relatives, never friends of the family or strangers. Also, the giving away could be to paternal or maternal relatives.
So much for the "basic features" of giving children away; now for some concrete examples.
1. My father's parents had 4 biological sons and 2 biological daughters. Of these, both daughters were given away (in name only) to their mother's brother and his wife. Conversely, the son of a cousin of the couple was given to be their additional son (also in name only).
2. My father's maternal grandparents had 4 biological daughters and no biological sons. Of the 4 daughters, one was given away (in name only) to her mother's sister and her husband. Conversely, the daughter of a sister of the couple, and the sons of two distant cousins of the couple, and the son of a brother of the couple were given to be their additional daughter and three additional sons. The daughter was given in name only, and two of the given sons were also given in name only, but the third son was physically given. This meant that on their gravestone (for example), the couple is listed as having 3 sons and 5 daughters, even though they had no biological sons and 4 biological daughters, and in their family life, had only one boy and 4 girls physically living with them in the home.
Concluding notes:
This "giving away" had various other ramifications and variants:
1. In some cases, the given child took on the surname of the family he/she was given to. In other cases, the child got a "double surname", i.e. the surname of the family he/she was given to was *added* to the surname of his/her biological family (usually in front of the original surname).
2. In some cases, the given child took on the "generation name" of the (children of the) family he/she was given to. In other cases, the child got two completely independent names, one with the generation name of his/her biological family, and the other with the generation name of the family he/she was given to.
3. Giving away didn't always have to be from one set of parents to another set of parents. In some cases, a child was given away to be directly the *grandchild* of a couple, without the child being officially the child of any of the children of that couple.
A very complex example of all of these features is my father's eldest brother. He had four grandmothers! Two were his biological grandmothers, the third was his grandmother because his mother had been given away (in name only) to another couple, and the woman partner of that couple was hence in some senses also his grandmother, and the fourth grandmother was a female cousin of his grandparents, whom he was given to (in name only) directly to be her grandchild.
4. As a side note, "giving away" wasn't the only reason children addressed their biological parents as "father" and "mother". Even children who were not given away sometimes did this. I believe this was done to confuse evil spirits. It was believed that there were evil spirits around who could and would harm children; by getting the children to address their own parents as "uncle" and "aunt", this would confuse the evil spirits, and make them less able to harm the children.
As an example of this, (when they were very young) my father and *all* his siblings (even the ones who were not given away) addressed their biological parents as "a0 cek4" and "a0 cim2", even though all of them remained living with (and were brought up by) their biological parents.
Last remarks:
1. This is "giving away" as I know of it in my extended family. I don't believe that it was something unique to them, but probably something quite commonly practiced by that (sub-)culture, in that period in time. If any readers are also familiar with something similar, I'd be very happy to hear about it.
2. Although it sounds quite complex, like all things sociological and ethnological, they seem completely natural if one grows up with them. As a child of (perhaps) 10 or 11, I remember being briefly puzzled why my aunt addressed her uncle and aunt as "father" and "mother". This was explained to me as a very natural thing, which I accepted, and having accepted that, all other instances of "giving away", as I gradually learnt about more and more instances in the extended family, also seemed very natural.
3. When speaking English, some of my relatives call this custom "adopting", "adopted out" (especially in the case of physical giving away), and say that such a child was "adopted". I'm not in favour of this term, because there were also many instances of children being adopted in a way which was much more similar to Western adoption. We called this "po3 lai5 chi3 e0" (literally: "carry come feed + possessive particle"). For example, such adoptions *were* from people who were friends, acquaintances, or even strangers. These are the cases which I prefer to call "adopted" when speaking English.
Another term which is used by my relatives for this custom when speaking English is "godson" or "goddaughter" (especially in the case of giving in name only). Again, I feel that these English words are too culturally specific to Western culture (there is - for me - a Christian aspect to this, absent from the Chinese "giving").
Furthermore, using "adopted" for the physical giving and "godchild' for giving in name fails to see the unity between the two, and the fact that they are variants of the same cultural phenomenon. For this reason I prefer these terms I have coined myself, based on the word "give" (as a loan-translation of Hokkien "hO7"), even if "he is a child who was 'given' " doesn't really make grammatical sense in English. [Such a sentence in English would normally require that the child be given *something*.]
4. This is a custom which died out in my parents' generation. Even though so many of their generation and earlier (born up to the 1940's) were given away, I know of no one in my own generation (born 1950's onwards) who was given away.
Giving away (of children)
Small typo in the above posting:
>> As a side note, "giving away" wasn't the only reason children
>> addressed their biological parents as "father" and "mother".
I meant to say of course:
>> As a side note, "giving away" wasn't the only reason children
>> STOPPED addressing their biological parents as "father" and "mother".
>> As a side note, "giving away" wasn't the only reason children
>> addressed their biological parents as "father" and "mother".
I meant to say of course:
>> As a side note, "giving away" wasn't the only reason children
>> STOPPED addressing their biological parents as "father" and "mother".
I forgot to say that there was one very common reason for physically giving children away, quite independent of clashes in horoscope.
If a couple was childless, or specifically did not have a son (or sometimes, a daughter), then one of the siblings of the couple might "give" one of the children to the childless couple. This was then practically identical to a Western "adoption", lacking some of the ritualistic aspects of the other forms of giving. (For example, the given child never continued to address his/her biological parents as "father" and "mother").
Understandably, this type of giving usually only happened if the couple doing the giving already had 2-3 children of their own. In my extended family, there were cases of children being given to elder OR younger siblings - it was purely based on which couple was childless and which couple felt they could bear to part with a child.
When I realised that this sort of giving hadn't been covered in my original posting, I realised too that it was slightly inaccurate to say that giving had died out in my generation. There were one or two people of my own generation who were given in this last way.
If a couple was childless, or specifically did not have a son (or sometimes, a daughter), then one of the siblings of the couple might "give" one of the children to the childless couple. This was then practically identical to a Western "adoption", lacking some of the ritualistic aspects of the other forms of giving. (For example, the given child never continued to address his/her biological parents as "father" and "mother").
Understandably, this type of giving usually only happened if the couple doing the giving already had 2-3 children of their own. In my extended family, there were cases of children being given to elder OR younger siblings - it was purely based on which couple was childless and which couple felt they could bear to part with a child.
When I realised that this sort of giving hadn't been covered in my original posting, I realised too that it was slightly inaccurate to say that giving had died out in my generation. There were one or two people of my own generation who were given in this last way.
Hi,
Funny things happend also in my family.
2 of my aunts, younger sisters of my father are childless. So my sister and me were sold to both of them. They paid some of 2,5 cents of Rupiah back in 50's (so cheap huh ?). I call my aunt and my uncle as mama and papa, but still keep calling my real mom and dad as mami and papi (Dutch way of mommie and daddy).
A younger brother of my father had 1 son, which just 1 year younger than me. Then he got another son and died within 1 year. They were of course very sad, but things happened. Then another 2 or 3 years later they had a daughter and the oldest son which was 1 year younger than me became ill and died within 3 months after his sister was born. They were again very sad and went to someone who can see the future (we call him as tukang kwamia). This guy said that my uncle can only have 1 descendant. He can have many children but only 1 descendant. So after another year my aunt was pregnant again, they gave away the first living child (daughter) to my aunt. She still call the aunt and uncle as aunt an uncle, but now also her biological mother and father was called as aunt and uncle.
Then 3 years later, another baby was born, and the second living child (son) was given away to my aunt which I call mama. He also call my aunt as Mama and call his own mother as aunt.
Anyway, since my uncle has only have 1 child who is calling mommie and daddy, there was no more children dying. After a couple of year, even the third living child was calling the mother and father as aunt and uncle. Although they are calling the biological parents as aunt and uncle, they are still using the name (surname) and lives with them.
Steve
Funny things happend also in my family.
2 of my aunts, younger sisters of my father are childless. So my sister and me were sold to both of them. They paid some of 2,5 cents of Rupiah back in 50's (so cheap huh ?). I call my aunt and my uncle as mama and papa, but still keep calling my real mom and dad as mami and papi (Dutch way of mommie and daddy).
A younger brother of my father had 1 son, which just 1 year younger than me. Then he got another son and died within 1 year. They were of course very sad, but things happened. Then another 2 or 3 years later they had a daughter and the oldest son which was 1 year younger than me became ill and died within 3 months after his sister was born. They were again very sad and went to someone who can see the future (we call him as tukang kwamia). This guy said that my uncle can only have 1 descendant. He can have many children but only 1 descendant. So after another year my aunt was pregnant again, they gave away the first living child (daughter) to my aunt. She still call the aunt and uncle as aunt an uncle, but now also her biological mother and father was called as aunt and uncle.
Then 3 years later, another baby was born, and the second living child (son) was given away to my aunt which I call mama. He also call my aunt as Mama and call his own mother as aunt.
Anyway, since my uncle has only have 1 child who is calling mommie and daddy, there was no more children dying. After a couple of year, even the third living child was calling the mother and father as aunt and uncle. Although they are calling the biological parents as aunt and uncle, they are still using the name (surname) and lives with them.
Steve
Hi Steve,
Thanks very much for responding. I read your account with great interest! It's nice to have my idea confirmed that this giving away - with all it's variations in how the child addressed his/her biological parents - was quite a common practice.
Your "kwamia" is almost definitely 看命 = "to see (a person's) fate/fortune". Many readers will know that "tukang" is Malay/Indonesian for "someone who performs a profession".
Thanks very much for responding. I read your account with great interest! It's nice to have my idea confirmed that this giving away - with all it's variations in how the child addressed his/her biological parents - was quite a common practice.
Your "kwamia" is almost definitely 看命 = "to see (a person's) fate/fortune". Many readers will know that "tukang" is Malay/Indonesian for "someone who performs a profession".
This exact scenario happened in my wife's family, in Taiwan, the adoption occurring about 50 years ago. My mother-in-law's older sister "gave" the child to her. My sister-in-law has always treated my parents-in-law as her true parents, while maintaining links with her biological parents and siblings.SimL wrote:I forgot to say that there was one very common reason for physically giving children away, quite independent of clashes in horoscope.
If a couple was childless, or specifically did not have a son (or sometimes, a daughter), then one of the siblings of the couple might "give" one of the children to the childless couple. This was then practically identical to a Western "adoption", lacking some of the ritualistic aspects of the other forms of giving. (For example, the given child never continued to address his/her biological parents as "father" and "mother").
Understandably, this type of giving usually only happened if the couple doing the giving already had 2-3 children of their own. In my extended family, there were cases of children being given to elder OR younger siblings - it was purely based on which couple was childless and which couple felt they could bear to part with a child.
When I realised that this sort of giving hadn't been covered in my original posting, I realised too that it was slightly inaccurate to say that giving had died out in my generation. There were one or two people of my own generation who were given in this last way.