Advertisement

Matrimonial Patterns and Trans-Ethnic Entities

  • Philippe RamirezEmail author
Conference paper
  • 387 Downloads
Part of the Springer Proceedings in Complexity book series (SPCOM)

Abstract

Despite the complexity of their object of study, i.e. human society and culture, anthropologists seldom address complexity per se. In this paper I would like to briefly suggest approaches to deal with certain complex issues involved in the modelization of social relations within a naturalistic paradigm. What I want to show primarily is how anthropological knowledge might be markedly enhanced by truly confronting the complexity of anthropological phenomena, i.e. by putting culture and social structures back into the natural/physical world, to understand how “it really works”. And the condition for performing such an enterprise is close cooperation with other disciplines dealing with the study of complexity. The topic at hand is modelling the origin of a system of surname equivalences in tribal India. But the work being done might have a much broader range, by helping the studies of matrimonial systems to adopt more naturalistic approaches.

Keywords

Generalize Exchange Demographic Stochasticity Short Distance Migration Descent Group Tribal Society 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. 1.
    Simmel G (1950) In: Wolff KH (ed) The sociology of Georg SimmelGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Emmons GT, De Laguna F (1991) The Tlingit Indians. University of Washington Press, SeattleGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Goodwin G (1937) The characteristics and function of clan in a Southern Athapascan Culture. Am Anthropol 39(3):394–407. doi: 10.1525/aa.1937.39.3.02a00030 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Shternberg LIA (Lev Iakovlevich) (1999) The social organization of the Gilyak. Anthropological papers of the AMNH; No. 82. Edited by Bruce Grant. http://digitallibrary.amnh.org/dspace/handle/2246/281
  5. 5.
    Swanton JR (1909) Contributions to the ethnology of the Haida. E.J. Brill/G.E. Stechert, Leiden/New YorkGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Verbov (1936) Лecныe нeнцы. Coвeтcкaя этнoгpaфия 2:56–70Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Needham R (1957) Circulating connubium in Eastern Sumba: a literary analysis. Bijdragen Tot de Taal-, Land-En Volkenkunde 113(2):168–178CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Lehman FK (1963) The structure of Chin SocietyGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Dyke B (1971) Potential mates in a small human population. Biodemography Soc Biol 18(1):28–39. doi: 10.1080/19485565.1971.9987897 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Gaines SW, Gaines WM (1997) Simulating success or failure: another look at small-population dynamics. Am Antiq 683–697Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Legendre S, Clobert J, Møller AP, Sorci G (1999) Demographic stochasticity and social mating system in the process of extinction of small populations: the case of passerines introduced to New Zealand. Am Nat 153(5):449–463CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Engen S, Lande R, Sæther B-E (2003) Demographic stochasticity and Allee effects in populations with two sexes. Ecology 84(9):2378–2386CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Drake J (2011) Allee Effects| Nature Education Knowledge 3(10):2, http://www.nature.com/scitable/knowledge/library/allee-effects-19699394 Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Livi L (1949) Considérations Théoriques et Pratiques sur le Concept de ‘Minimum de Population.’. Population (French Edition) 4(4):754–756. doi: 10.2307/1523777 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Lévi-Strauss C (1969) The elementary structures of kinship. Beacon, BostonGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Leach ER (1962) The determinants of differential cross-cousin marriage (correspondence 1). Man 62:153Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Gilbert JP, Hammel EA (1966) Computer simulation and analysis of problems in kinship and social structure. Am Anthropol 68(1):71–93CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Kunstadter P, Buhler R, Stephan FF, Westoff CF (1963) Demographic variability and preferential marriage patterns. Am J Phys Anthropol 21(4):511–519CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Harary F, Hage P (1996) The logical structure of asymmetric marriage. L’Homme 36(139):109–124. doi: 10.3406/hom.1996.370120 Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Krige EJ (1975) Asymmetrical matrilateral cross-cousin marriage—the Lovedu case. Afr Stud 34(4):231–258CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Leach ER (1951) The structural implications of matrilateral cross-cousin marriage. J R Anthropol Inst G B Irel 81(1/2):23–55. doi: 10.2307/2844015 Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Löffler LG (1964) Prescriptive matrilateral cross-cousin marriage in asymmetric alliance systems: a fallacy. Southwest J Anthropol 20(2):218–227CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Moore SF (1963) Oblique and asymmetrical cross-cousin marriage and Crow-Omaha terminology. Am Anthropol 65(2):296–311. doi: 10.1525/aa.1963.65.2.02a00060 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Denham WW (2013) Beyond fictions of closure in Australian Aboriginal Kinship. Math Anthropol Cult Theory 5(1), http://escholarship.org/uc/item/7d69w4sk
  25. 25.
    Dousset L (2005) Assimilating identities: social networks and the diffusion of sections., http://halshs.archives-ouvertes.fr/docs/00/19/33/39/PDF/Dousset_assimilating_identities.pdf Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    White DR, Denham WW (2007) The indigenous Australian marriage paradox: small-world dynamics on a continental scale. In: SASci Annual Meeting, San Antonio. http://www.researchgate.net/publication/227855133_The_Indigenous_Australian_Marriage_Para dox_Small-World_Dynamics_on_a_Continental_Scale/file/d912f4fe4ed0d05ca7.pdfGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Bocquet-Appel J-P, Masset C (1982) Farewell to paleodemography. J Hum Evol 11(4):321–333. doi: 10.1016/S0047-2484(82)80023-7 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Ramirez P (2013) Ethnic conversions and transethnic descent groups in the Assam-Meghalaya borderlands. Asian Ethnol 72(2):279–97. http://nirc.nanzan-u.ac.jp/nfile/4304
  29. 29.
    Ramirez P (2014) People of the margins: across ethnic boundaries in North-East India. Spectrum, GuwahatiGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Robinne F (2007) Transethnic social space of clans and lineages: a discussion of Leach’s concept of common ritual language. In: Robinne F, Sadan M (eds) Social dynamics in the highlands of Southeast Asia. Brill, Leiden/Boston, pp 283–297Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Schlee G (1985) Interethnic clan identities among Cushitic-speaking pastoralists. Afr J Int Afr Inst 55(1):17–38. doi: 10.2307/1159837

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.CNRS, Centre for Himalayan StudiesVillejuif CedexFrance

Personalised recommendations