The Smallest Group of Individuals That Can Be Legitimately Called a Family Is Known as

Relationship term; web of social relationships that class an important part of the lives of well-nigh humans in nigh societies; form of social connection

In anthropology, kinship is the web of social relationships that grade an important function of the lives of all humans in all societies, although its verbal meanings even within this discipline are often debated. Anthropologist Robin Fox states that "the study of kinship is the study of what man does with these basic facts of life – mating, gestation, parenthood, socialization, siblingship etc." Human society is unique, he argues, in that we are "working with the same raw textile equally exists in the beast earth, only [nosotros] can conceptualize and categorize information technology to serve social ends."^[1] These social ends include the socialization of children and the formation of bones economic, political and religious groups.

Kinship can refer both to the patterns of social relationships themselves, or it tin can refer to the study of the patterns of social relationships in one or more than human cultures (i.due east. kinship studies). Over its history, anthropology has developed a number of related concepts and terms in the study of kinship, such as descent, descent group, lineage, analogousness/affine, consanguinity/cognate and fictive kinship. Further, even within these two broad usages of the term, there are different theoretical approaches.

Broadly, kinship patterns may exist considered to include people related by both descent – i.e. social relations during development – and past marriage. Human kinship relations through marriage are commonly called "analogousness" in contrast to the relationships that ascend in one'due south group of origin, which may be called 1's descent group. In some cultures, kinship relationships may be considered to extend out to people an individual has economic or political relationships with, or other forms of social connections. Inside a culture, some descent groups may be considered to lead dorsum to gods^[2] or beast ancestors (totems). This may be conceived of on a more or less literal basis.

Kinship can also refer to a principle past which individuals or groups of individuals are organized into social groups, roles, categories and genealogy past means of kinship terminologies. Family relations can be represented concretely (female parent, brother, granddaddy) or abstractly by degrees of relationship (kinship distance). A relationship may be relative (e.k. a father in relation to a child) or reverberate an accented (eastward.g. the deviation between a mother and a childless adult female). Degrees of human relationship are non identical to heirship or legal succession. Many codes of ethics consider the bond of kinship as creating obligations between the related persons stronger than those between strangers, as in Confucian filial piety.

In a more full general sense, kinship may refer to a similarity or affinity between entities on the basis of some or all of their characteristics that are under focus. This may be due to a shared ontological origin, a shared historical or cultural connectedness, or some other perceived shared features that connect the two entities. For case, a person studying the ontological roots of human being languages (etymology) might ask whether there is kinship between the English word seven and the High german discussion sieben. It can exist used in a more diffuse sense equally in, for example, the news headline "Madonna feels kinship with vilified Wallis Simpson", to imply a felt similarity or empathy between two or more entities.

In biology, "kinship" typically refers to the degree of genetic relatedness or the coefficient of relationship betwixt private members of a species (eastward.g. as in kin selection theory). It may also exist used in this specific sense when applied to human relationships, in which instance its meaning is closer to consanguinity or genealogy.

Basic concepts [edit]

Family types [edit]

Family unit is a group of people affiliated by consanguinity (by recognized birth), analogousness (by marriage), or co-residence/shared consumption (see Nurture kinship). In most societies, it is the principal institution for the socialization of children. As the basic unit for raising children, Anthropologists most generally classify family organization as matrifocal (a mother and her children); conjugal (a hubby, his wife, and children; too called nuclear family unit); avuncular (a brother, his sister, and her children); or extended family in which parents and children co-reside with other members of one parent'south family unit.

However, producing children is non the only role of the family; in societies with a sexual sectionalisation of labor, marriage, and the resulting human relationship betwixt two people, information technology is necessary for the formation of an economically productive household.^{[3] [iv] [v]}

Terminology [edit]

A mention of "cȳnne" (kinsmen) in the Beowulf

Unlike societies classify kinship relations differently and therefore employ dissimilar systems of kinship terminology – for example some languages distinguish between affinal and consanguine uncles, whereas others have only one word to refer to both a father and his brothers. Kinship terminologies include the terms of accost used in different languages or communities for unlike relatives and the terms of reference used to identify the relationship of these relatives to ego or to each other.

Kin terminologies can exist either descriptive or classificatory. When a descriptive terminology is used, a term refers to but 1 specific blazon of relationship, while a classificatory terminology groups many different types of relationships nether i term. For case, the word brother in English-speaking societies indicates a son of one's same parent; thus, English-speaking societies apply the discussion brother as a descriptive term referring to this relationship but. In many other classificatory kinship terminologies, in contrast, a person's male first cousin (whether mother'south brother'south son, mother's sis's son, male parent's blood brother'due south son, father's sister's son) may also exist referred to as brothers.

The major patterns of kinship systems that are known which Lewis Henry Morgan identified through kinship terminology in his 1871 work Systems of Consanguinity and Affinity of the Human Family are:

• Iroquois kinship (also known as "bifurcate merging")
• Crow kinship (an expansion of bifurcate merging)
• Omaha kinship (also an expansion of bifurcate merging)
• Eskimo kinship (as well referred to as "lineal kinship")
• Hawaiian kinship (also referred to as the "generational organization")
• Sudanese kinship (also referred to as the "descriptive system")^{[ citation needed ]}

There is a seventh type of organization merely identified as distinct after:

• Dravidian kinship (the classical type of classificatory kinship, with bifurcate merging but totally distinct from Iroquois). Most Australian Ancient kinship is also classificatory.

The 6 types (Crow, Eskimo, Hawaiian, Iroquois, Omaha, Sudanese) that are not fully classificatory (Dravidian, Australian) are those identified by Murdock (1949) prior to Lounsbury'due south (1964) rediscovery of the linguistic principles of classificatory kin terms.

Tri-relational Kin-terms [edit]

An analogy of the bi-relational and tri-relational senses of nakurrng in Bininj Gun-Wok.

While normal kin-terms discussed above denote a relationship between two entities (east.g. the word 'sister' denotes the human relationship between the speaker or another entity and some other feminine entity who shares the parents of the former), trirelational kin-terms—also known as triangular, triadic, ternary, and shared kin-terms—denote a relationship between three distinct entities. These occur commonly in Australian Aboriginal languages with the context of Australian Aboriginal kinship.

In Bininj Gun-Wok,^[6] for case, the bi-relational kin-term nakurrng is differentiated from its tri-relational counterpart by the position of the possessive pronoun ke. When nakurrng is anchored to the addressee with ke in the second position, it simply means 'brother' (which includes a broader fix of relations than in English). When the ke is fronted, however, the term nakurrng now incorporates the male speaker as a propositus (P i.e. bespeak of reference for a kin-relation) and encapsulates the entire human relationship as follows:

• The person (R eferent) who is your (P Addressee) maternal uncle and who is my (P Speaker) nephew by virtue of y'all being my grandchild.

Kin-based Group Terms and Pronouns [edit]

Many Australian languages too have elaborate systems of referential terms for denoting groups of people based on their relationship to one some other (non only their relationship to the speaker or an external propositus like 'grandparents'). For example, in Kuuk Thaayorre, a maternal gramps and his sister are referred to equally paanth ngan-ngethe and addressed with the vocative ngethin. ^[7] In Bardi, a father and his sister are irrmoorrgooloo; a homo'due south married woman and his children are aalamalarr.

In Murrinh-patha, nonsingular pronouns are differentiated not only by the gender makeup of the group, only too by the members' interrelation. If the members are in a sibling-similar relation, a third pronoun (SIB) will be chosen distinct from the Masculine (MASC) and Feminine/Neuter (FEM).^[viii]

Descent [edit]

Descent rules [edit]

In many societies where kinship connections are important, in that location are rules, though they may be expressed or be taken for granted. There are four main headings that anthropologists employ to categorize rules of descent. They are bilateral, unilineal, ambilineal and double descent.^[ix]

• Bilateral descent or ii-sided descent affiliates an individual more or less every bit with relatives on his male parent's and mother'southward sides. A skillful instance is the Yakurr of the Crossriver state of Nigeria.
• Unilineal rules affiliates an individual through the descent of one sexual activity merely, that is, either through males or through females. They are subdivided into 2: patrilineal (male person) and matrilineal (female). Most societies are patrilineal. Examples of a matrilineal organisation of descent are the Nyakyusa of Tanzania and the Nair of Republic of india. Many societies that practise a matrilineal organization frequently take a matrilocal residence only men nevertheless exercise significant say-so.
• Ambilineal (or Cognatic) dominion affiliates an individual with kinsmen through the male parent'south or mother'southward line. Some people in societies that do this organisation affiliate with a group of relatives through their fathers and others through their mothers. The individual tin can choose which side he wants to affiliate to. The Samoans of the Due south Pacific are an fantabulous example of an ambilineal society. The core members of the Samoan descent grouping can live together in the same chemical compound.
• Double descent (or double unilineal descent) refers to societies in which both the patrilineal and matrilineal descent group are recognized. In these societies an individual affiliates for some purposes with a group of patrilineal kinsmen and for other purposes with a group of matrilineal kinsmen. Individuals in societies that practice this are recognized every bit a role of multiple descent groups, usually at least two. The most widely known example of double descent is the Afikpo of Imo state in Nigeria. Although patrilineage is considered an important method of organization, the Afikpo considers matrilineal ties to be more important.

Descent groups [edit]

A descent group is a social grouping whose members talk near common ancestry. A unilineal society is ane in which the descent of an private is reckoned either from the mother'southward or the father's line of descent. Matrilineal descent is based on relationship to females of the family unit line. A child would not be recognized with their father'southward family in these societies, but would be seen as a member of their female parent's family's line.^[ten] Simply put, individuals vest to their mother'southward descent grouping. Matrilineal descent includes the mother's blood brother, who in some societies may laissez passer along inheritance to the sister'southward children or succession to a sister's son. Conversely, with patrilineal descent, individuals belong to their father's descent group. Children are recognized as members of their father's family, and descent is based on relationship to males of the family unit line.^[10] Societies with the Iroquois kinship system, are typically unilineal, while the Iroquois proper are specifically matrilineal.

In a society which reckons descent bilaterally (bilineal), descent is reckoned through both father and mother, without unilineal descent groups. Societies with the Eskimo kinship system, like the Inuit, Yupik, and nearly Western societies, are typically bilateral. The egoistic kindred group is too typical of bilateral societies. Additionally, the Batek people of Malaysia recognize kinship ties through both parents' family unit lines, and kinship terms indicate that neither parent nor their families are of more or less importance than the other.^[xi]

Some societies reckon descent patrilineally for some purposes, and matrilineally for others. This arrangement is sometimes chosen double descent. For case, sure belongings and titles may exist inherited through the male line, and others through the female line.

Societies can as well consider descent to exist ambilineal (such every bit Hawaiian kinship) where offspring determine their lineage through the matrilineal line or the patrilineal line.

Lineages, clans, phratries, moieties, and matrimonial sides [edit]

A lineage is a unilineal descent group that can demonstrate their mutual descent from a known apical ancestor. Unilineal lineages can be matrilineal or patrilineal, depending on whether they are traced through mothers or fathers, respectively. Whether matrilineal or patrilineal descent is considered most significant differs from culture to culture.

A association is generally a descent group claiming common descent from an apical ancestor. Often, the details of parentage are not important elements of the clan tradition. Non-man upmost ancestors are called totems. Examples of clans are found in Chechen, Chinese, Irish gaelic, Japanese, Polish, Scottish, Tlingit, and Somali societies.

A phratry is a descent group composed of two or more clans each of whose apical ancestors are descended from a farther common ancestor.

If a society is divided into exactly two descent groups, each is called a moiety, after the French word for half. If the two halves are each obliged to marry out, and into the other, these are chosen matrimonial moieties. Houseman and White (1998b, bibliography) have discovered numerous societies where kinship network analysis shows that two halves marry one another, similar to betrothed moieties, except that the ii halves—which they call betrothed sides ^[12]—are neither named nor descent groups, although the egocentric kinship terms may be consistent with the design of sidedness, whereas the sidedness is culturally evident just imperfect.^[xiii]

The word deme refers to an endogamous local population that does not have unilineal descent.^[xiv] Thus, a deme is a local endogamous community without internal segmentation into clans.

House societies [edit]

In some societies kinship and political relations are organized effectually membership in corporately organized dwellings rather than around descent groups or lineages, as in the "House of Windsor". The concept of a firm society was originally proposed by Claude Lévi-Strauss who called them "sociétés à maison".^{[xv] [16]} The concept has been practical to understand the arrangement of societies from Mesoamerica and the Moluccas to Due north Africa and medieval Europe.^{[17] [18]} Lévi-Strauss introduced the concept as an alternative to 'corporate kinship group' amidst the cognatic kinship groups of the Pacific region. The socially significant groupings within these societies have variable membership because kinship is reckoned bilaterally (through both father'due south and mother's kin) and comes together for only short periods. Holding, genealogy and residence are not the basis for the grouping'southward existence.^[xix]

Union (affinity) [edit]

Marriage is a socially or ritually recognized union or legal contract between spouses that establishes rights and obligations betwixt them, between them and their children, and between them and their in-laws.^[xx] The definition of matrimony varies according to unlike cultures, but it is principally an institution in which interpersonal relationships, unremarkably intimate and sexual, are acknowledged. When defined broadly, marriage is considered a cultural universal. A broad definition of marriage includes those that are monogamous, polygamous, same-sex and temporary.

The deed of marriage commonly creates normative or legal obligations between the individuals involved, and any offspring they may produce. Union may result, for instance, in "a union between a human and a adult female such that children built-in to the adult female are the recognized legitimate offspring of both partners."^[21] Edmund Leach argued that no i definition of marriage practical to all cultures, merely offered a list of ten rights frequently associated with marriage, including sexual monopoly and rights with respect to children (with specific rights differing across cultures).^[22]

At that place is wide cross-cultural variation in the social rules governing the option of a partner for matrimony. In many societies, the choice of partner is limited to suitable persons from specific social groups. In some societies the rule is that a partner is selected from an private's ain social group – endogamy, this is the case in many class and degree based societies. Merely in other societies a partner must be chosen from a dissimilar group than one's own – exogamy, this is the case in many societies practicing totemic faith where guild is divided into several exogamous totemic clans, such as nearly Aboriginal Australian societies. Marriages betwixt parents and children, or between full siblings, with few exceptions,^{[23] [24] [25] [26] [27] [28] [29]} have been considered incest and forbidden. Still, marriages between more than distant relatives have been much more than common, with one estimate existence that fourscore% of all marriages in history accept been betwixt 2nd cousins or closer.^[xxx]

Alliance (marital substitution systems) [edit]

Systemic forms of preferential marriage may have wider social implications in terms of economic and political organization. In a wide array of lineage-based societies with a classificatory kinship arrangement, potential spouses are sought from a specific class of relatives equally determined past a prescriptive marriage rule. Insofar as regular marriages following prescriptive rules occur, lineages are linked together in fixed relationships; these ties between lineages may form political alliances in kinship dominated societies.^[31] French structural anthropologist Claude Lévi-Strauss developed the alliance theory to account for the "uncomplicated" kinship structures created by the limited number of prescriptive spousal relationship rules possible.^[32]

Claude Lévi-Strauss argued in The Unproblematic Structures of Kinship (1949), that the incest taboo necessitated the commutation of women between kinship groups. Levi-Strauss thus shifted the emphasis from descent groups to the stable structures or relations between groups that preferential and prescriptive marriage rules created.^[33]

History [edit]

One of the foundational works in the anthropological study of kinship was Morgan's Systems of Consanguinity and Analogousness of the Human Family unit (1871). As is the instance with other social sciences, Anthropology and kinship studies emerged at a time when the agreement of the Human species' comparative identify in the globe was somewhat unlike from today'southward. Evidence that life in stable social groups is not just a feature of humans, merely also of many other primates, was yet to emerge and society was considered to be a uniquely human affair. As a result, early kinship theorists saw an apparent need to explain not only the details of how human social groups are synthetic, their patterns, meanings and obligations, merely as well why they are constructed at all. The why explanations thus typically presented the fact of life in social groups (which appeared to be unique to humans) equally being largely a effect of homo ideas and values.

Morgan's early influence [edit]

Morgan'south explanation for why humans live in groups was largely based on the notion that all humans have an inherent natural valuation of genealogical ties (an unexamined supposition that would remain at the eye of kinship studies for another century, see below), and therefore also an inherent want to construct social groups around these ties. Fifty-fifty so, Morgan found that members of a society who are not shut genealogical relatives may nevertheless use what he called kinship terms (which he considered to be originally based on genealogical ties). This fact was already evident in his use of the term affinity within his concept of the arrangement of kinship. The most lasting of Morgan's contributions was his discovery of the difference between descriptive and classificatory kinship terms, which situated wide kinship classes on the ground of imputing abstract social patterns of relationships having little or no overall relation to genetic closeness merely instead cognition most kinship, social distinctions equally they bear upon linguistic usages in kinship terminology, and strongly relate, if only by approximation, to patterns of matrimony.^[13]

Kinship networks and social process^[34] [edit]

A more flexible view of kinship was formulated in British social anthropology. Among the attempts to suspension out of universalizing assumptions and theories most kinship, Radcliffe-Brown (1922, The Andaman Islands; 1930, The social organisation of Australian tribes) was the first to assert that kinship relations are best idea of equally concrete networks of relationships among individuals. He then described these relationships, however, equally typified by interlocking interpersonal roles. Malinowski (1922, Argonauts of the Western Pacific) described patterns of events with concrete individuals every bit participants stressing the relative stability of institutions and communities, but without insisting on abstruse systems or models of kinship. Gluckman (1955, The judicial process among the Barotse of Northern Rhodesia) counterbalanced the emphasis on stability of institutions confronting processes of change and disharmonize, inferred through detailed analysis of instances of social interaction to infer rules and assumptions. John Barnes, Victor Turner, and others, affiliated with Gluckman'south Manchester schoolhouse of anthropology, described patterns of bodily network relations in communities and fluid situations in urban or migratory context, equally with the piece of work of J. Clyde Mitchell (1965, Social Networks in Urban Situations). However, all these approaches clung to a view of stable functionalism, with kinship as ane of the central stable institutions.

"Kinship arrangement" as systemic blueprint [edit]

The concept of "system of kinship" tended to dominate anthropological studies of kinship in the early 20th century. Kinship systems as divers in anthropological texts and ethnographies were seen as constituted by patterns of beliefs and attitudes in relation to the differences in terminology, listed above, for referring to relationships as well as for addressing others. Many anthropologists went so far equally to run across, in these patterns of kinship, strong relations between kinship categories and patterns of wedlock, including forms of marriage, restrictions on marriage, and cultural concepts of the boundaries of incest. A great deal of inference was necessarily involved in such constructions as to "systems" of kinship, and attempts to construct systemic patterns and reconstruct kinship evolutionary histories on these bases were largely invalidated in after work. However, anthropologist Dwight Read later argued that the mode in which kinship categories are defined by individual researchers are substantially inconsistent.^[35] This not only occurs when working within a systemic cultural model that can be elicited in fieldwork, but also when allowing considerable individual variability in details, such equally when they are recorded through relative products.^[36]

Conflicting theories of the mid 20th century^[37] [edit]

In trying to resolve the problems of dubious inferences almost kinship "systems", George P. Murdock (1949, Social Structure) compiled kinship data to exam a theory almost universals in human kinship in the way that terminologies were influenced by the behavioral similarities or social differences amongst pairs of kin, proceeding on the view that the psychological ordering of kinship systems radiates out from ego and the nuclear family unit to different forms of extended family. Lévi-Strauss (1949, Les Structures Elementaires), on the other hand, too looked for global patterns to kinship, but viewed the "elementary" forms of kinship every bit lying in the means that families were continued by union in different fundamental forms resembling those of modes of exchange: symmetric and directly, reciprocal filibuster, or generalized exchange.

Recognition of fluidity in kinship meanings and relations [edit]

Building on Lévi-Strauss's (1949) notions of kinship as caught up with the fluid languages of exchange, Edmund Leach (1961, Pul Eliya) argued that kinship was a flexible idiom that had something of the grammar of a language, both in the uses of terms for kin merely as well in the fluidities of language, meaning, and networks. His field studies criticized the ideas of structural-functional stability of kinship groups every bit corporations with charters that lasted long beyond the lifetimes of individuals, which had been the orthodoxy of British Social Anthropology. This sparked debates over whether kinship could be resolved into specific organized sets of rules and components of meaning, or whether kinship meanings were more fluid, symbolic, and independent of grounding in supposedly determinate relations among individuals or groups, such equally those of descent or prescriptions for marriage.

From the 1950s onwards, reports on kinship patterns in the New Guinea Highlands added some momentum to what had until then been only occasional fleeting suggestions that living together (co-residence) might underlie social bonding, and eventually contributed to the general shift away from a genealogical approach (run across beneath section). For example, on the basis of his observations, Barnes suggested:

[C]learly, genealogical connexion of some sort is one criterion for membership of many social groups. But it may not be the only criterion; birth, or residence, or a parent's former residence, or utilization of garden country, or participation in substitution and feasting activities or in business firm-building or raiding, may be other relevant criteria for group membership."(Barnes 1962,6)^[38]

Similarly, Langness' ethnography of the Bena Bena also emphasized the primacy of residence patterns in 'creating' kinship ties:

The sheer fact of residence in a Bena Bena group tin and does determine kinship. People practise not necessarily reside where they do because they are kinsmen: rather they become kinsmen because they reside in that location." (Langness 1964, 172 emphasis in original)^[39]

In 1972 David Grand. Schneider raised^[twoscore] deep issues with the notion that human social bonds and 'kinship' was a natural category built upon genealogical ties and made a fuller statement in his 1984 book A critique of the study of Kinship ^[41] which had a major influence on the subsequent study of kinship.

Schneider's critique of genealogical concepts [edit]

Before the questions raised inside anthropology about the study of 'kinship' past David G. Schneider^[41] and others from the 1960s onwards, anthropology itself had paid very little attending to the notion that kinship bonds were anything other than connected to consanguineal (or genealogical) relatedness (or its local cultural conceptions). Schneider's 1968 study^[42] of the symbolic meanings surrounding ideas of kinship in American Civilization found that Americans ascribe a special significance to 'blood ties' besides as related symbols similar the naturalness of spousal relationship and raising children inside this civilization. In afterward work (1972 and 1984) Schneider argued that unexamined genealogical notions of kinship had been embedded in anthropology since Morgan's early work^[43] because American anthropologists (and anthropologists in western Europe) had made the mistake of assuming these particular cultural values of 'blood is thicker than water', common in their ain societies, were 'natural' and universal for all human being cultures (i.due east. a form of ethnocentrism). He concluded that, due to these unexamined assumptions, the whole enterprise of 'kinship' in anthropology may have been built on faulty foundations. His 1984 book A Critique of The Report of Kinship gave his fullest account of this critique.

Certainly for Morgan (1870:10) the bodily bonds of claret relationship had a force and vitality of their own quite apart from any social overlay which they may also have acquired, and it is this biological relationship itself which accounts for what Radcliffe-Chocolate-brown called "the source of social cohesion". (Schneider 1984, 49)

Schneider himself emphasised a distinction between the notion of a social relationship equally intrinsically given and inalienable (from birth), and a social relationship as created, constituted and maintained by a process of interaction, or doing (Schneider 1984, 165). Schneider used the example of the citamangen / fak relationship in Yap order, that his own early research had previously glossed over equally a father / son relationship, to illustrate the problem;

The crucial point is this: in the human relationship between citamangen and fak the stress in the definition of the relationship is more than on doing than on being. That is, information technology is more what the citamangen does for fak and what fak does for citamangen that makes or constitutes the relationship. This is demonstrated, first, in the ability to terminate admittedly the relationship where there is a failure in the doing, when the fak fails to do what he is supposed to do; and 2d, in the reversal of terms then that the old, dependent man becomes fak, to the boyfriend, tam. The European and the anthropological notion of consanguinity, of claret human relationship and descent, remainder on precisely the opposite kind of value. Information technology rests more on the state of being... on the biogenetic relationship which is represented by one or another variant of the symbol of 'blood' (consanguinity), or on 'birth', on qualities rather than on operation. Nosotros take tried to impose this definition of a kind of relation on all peoples, insisting that kinship consists in relations of consanguinity and that kinship every bit consanguinity is a universal status.(Schneider 1984, 72)

Schneider preferred to focus on these often ignored processes of "performance, forms of doing, various codes for comport, different roles" (p. 72) as the near of import constituents of kinship. His critique quickly prompted a new generation of anthropologists to reconsider how they conceptualized, observed and described social relationships ('kinship') in the cultures they studied.

Postal service-Schneider [edit]

Schneider'southward critique is widely best-selling^{[44] [45] [46]} to have marked a turning signal in anthropology's report of social relationships and interactions. Some anthropologists moved forward with kinship studies by teasing apart biological and social aspects, prompted by Schneider's question;

The question of whether kinship is a privileged system and if so, why, remains without a satisfactory answer. If it is privileged because of its relationship to the functional prerequisites imposed past the nature of physical kinship, this remains to be spelled out in even the most uncomplicated item. (Schneider 1984, 163)

Schneider also dismissed the sociobiological account of biological influences, maintaining that these did not fit the ethnographic evidence (see more than below). Janet Carsten employed her studies with the Malays^[47] to reassess kinship. She uses the thought of relatedness to motion away from a pre-synthetic analytic opposition between the biological and the social. Carsten argued that relatedness should exist described in terms of indigenous statements and practices, some of which autumn outside what anthropologists have conventionally understood as kinship;

Ideas near relatedness in Langkawi testify how culturally specific is the separation of the 'social' from the 'biological' and the latter to sexual reproduction. In Langkawi relatedness is derived both from acts of procreation and from living and eating together. Information technology makes picayune sense in indigenous terms to characterization some of these activities equally social and others equally biological. (Carsten 1995, 236)

Philip Thomas' work with the Temanambondro of Republic of madagascar highlights that nurturing processes are considered to be the 'basis' for kinship ties in this civilization, notwithstanding genealogical connections;

Yet just as fathers are non merely made by birth, neither are mothers, and although mothers are not made by "custom" they, like fathers, can brand themselves through another type of performatively constituted relation, the giving of "nurture". Relations of ancestry are particularly important in contexts of ritual, inheritance and the defining of marriageability and incest; they are in effect the "structuring structures" (Bourdieu 1977) of social reproduction and intergenerational continuity. Father, female parent and children are, however, also performatively related through the giving and receiving of "nurture" (fitezana). Similar ancestry, relations of "nurture" practice not e'er coincide with relations past birth; simply unlike ancestry, "nurture" is a largely ungendered relation, constituted in contexts of everyday practical existence, in the intimate, familial and familiar world of the household, and in ongoing relations of piece of work and consumption, of feeding and farming. (Thomas 1999, 37)^[48]

Similar ethnographic accounts have emerged from a multifariousness of cultures since Schneider's intervention. The concept of nurture kinship highlights the extent to which kinship relationships may be brought into being through the operation of various acts of nurture between individuals. Additionally the concept highlights ethnographic findings that, in a wide swath of homo societies, people understand, conceptualize and symbolize their relationships predominantly in terms of giving, receiving and sharing nurture. These approaches were somewhat forerun by Malinowski, in his ethnographic study of sexual behaviour on the Trobriand Islands which noted that the Trobrianders did non believe pregnancy to be the result of sexual intercourse between the man and the woman, and they denied that in that location was any physiological human relationship between begetter and child.^[49] Withal, while paternity was unknown in the "full biological sense", for a woman to have a kid without having a hubby was considered socially undesirable. Fatherhood was therefore recognised as a social and nurturing part; the woman'south hubby is the "human being whose role and duty information technology is to take the kid in his arms and to help her in nursing and bringing it up";^[l] "Thus, though the natives are ignorant of any physiological need for a male in the constitution of the family, they regard him as indispensable socially".^[51]

Biology, psychology and kinship [edit]

Like Schneider, other anthropologists of kinship accept largely rejected sociobiological accounts of homo social patterns equally being both reductionistic and also empirically incompatible with ethnographic data on human kinship. Notably, Marshall Sahlins strongly critiqued the sociobiological arroyo through reviews of ethnographies in his 1976 The Use and Abuse of Biology ^[52] noting that for humans "the categories of 'near' and 'distant' [kin] vary independently of consanguinal distance and that these categories organize actual social practice" (p. 112).

Independently from anthropology, biologists studying organisms' social behaviours and relationships have been interested to understand nether what conditions significant social behaviors can evolve to become a typical characteristic of a species (encounter inclusive fitness theory). Considering circuitous social relationships and cohesive social groups are common not but to humans, just too to well-nigh primates, biologists maintain that these biological theories of sociality should in principle be generally applicable. The more challenging question arises as to how such ideas can be applied to the human species whilst fully taking business relationship of the extensive ethnographic evidence that has emerged from anthropological research on kinship patterns.

Early developments of biological inclusive fitness theory and the derivative field of Sociobiology, encouraged some sociobiologists and evolutionary psychologists to approach human kinship with the assumption that inclusive fitness theory predicts that kinship relations in humans are indeed expected to depend on genetic relatedness, which they readily connected with the genealogy approach of early anthropologists such equally Morgan (see above sections). Yet, this is the position that Schneider, Sahlins and other anthropologists explicitly reject.

Nonreductive biological science and nurture kinship [edit]

In agreement with Schneider, Holland argued^[53] that an accurate account of biological theory and evidence supports the view that social bonds (and kinship) are indeed mediated by a shared social environment and processes of frequent interaction, intendance and nurture, rather than by genealogical relationships per se (even if genealogical relationships frequently correlate with such processes). In his 2012 book Social bonding and nurture kinship Holland argues that sociobiologists and later evolutionary psychologists misrepresent biological theory, mistakenly believing that inclusive fettle theory predicts that genetic relatedness per se is the status that mediates social bonding and social cooperation in organisms. Holland points out that the biological theory (run into inclusive fitness) only specifies that a statistical relationship between social behaviors and genealogical relatedness is a criterion for the evolution of social behaviors. The theory's originator, West.D.Hamilton considered that organisms' social behaviours were likely to be mediated by general conditions that typically correlate with genetic relatedness, simply are not likely to exist mediated past genetic relatedness per se ^[54] (see Human being inclusive fitness and Kin recognition). The netherlands reviews fieldwork from social mammals and primates to show that social bonding and cooperation in these species is indeed mediated through processes of shared living context, familiarity and attachments, not by genetic relatedness per se. Holland thus argues that both the biological theory and the biological evidence is nondeterministic and nonreductive, and that biology as a theoretical and empirical attempt (equally opposed to 'biology' equally a cultural-symbolic nexus as outlined in Schneider's 1968 book) actually supports the nurture kinship perspective of cultural anthropologists working post-Schneider (meet higher up sections). Holland argues that, whilst there is nonreductive compatibility around homo kinship between anthropology, biological science and psychology, for a full account of kinship in whatsoever particular human being civilisation, ethnographic methods, including accounts of the people themselves, the analysis of historical contingencies, symbolic systems, economic and other cultural influences, remain centrally important.

Holland'southward position is widely supported by both cultural anthropologists and biologists as an approach which, according to Robin Fob, "gets to the middle of the affair concerning the contentious relationship between kinship categories, genetic relatedness and the prediction of behavior".^[55]

Evolutionary psychology [edit]

The other approach, that of Evolutionary psychology, continues to take the view that genetic relatedness (or genealogy) is key to understanding human kinship patterns. In contrast to Sahlin's position (above), Daly and Wilson contend that "the categories of 'near' and 'distant' do not 'vary independently of consanguinal distance', not in whatsoever club on globe." (Daly et al. 1997,^[56] p282). A current view is that humans have an inborn but culturally afflicted system for detecting certain forms of genetic relatedness. One important cistron for sibling detection, especially relevant for older siblings, is that if an infant and one'due south mother are seen to care for the infant, then the baby and oneself are assumed to be related. Some other factor, especially important for younger siblings who cannot use the kickoff method, is that persons who grew up together see one another as related. Withal some other may be genetic detection based on the major histocompatibility complex (See Major Histocompatibility Circuitous and Sexual Selection). This kinship detection system in turn affects other genetic predispositions such every bit the incest taboo and a tendency for altruism towards relatives.^[57]

One issue within this arroyo is why many societies organize co-ordinate to descent (see below) and non exclusively co-ordinate to kinship. An explanation is that kinship does not form clear boundaries and is centered differently for each individual. In contrast, descent groups usually do form clear boundaries and provide an easy mode to create cooperative groups of various sizes.^[58]

According to an evolutionary psychology hypothesis that assumes that descent systems are optimized to assure loftier genetic probability of relatedness between lineage members, males should adopt a patrilineal organisation if paternal certainty is loftier; males should prefer a matrilineal system if paternal certainty is low. Some enquiry supports this clan with one study finding no patrilineal order with low paternity confidence and no matrilineal club with high paternal certainty. Some other association is that pastoral societies are relatively more often patrilineal compared to horticultural societies. This may be because wealth in pastoral societies in the course of mobile cattle can easily be used to pay bride price which favor concentrating resources on sons then they tin can ally.^[58]

The evolutionary psychology account of biological science continues to exist rejected by well-nigh cultural anthropologists.

Extensions of the kinship metaphor [edit]

Fictive kinship [edit]

Detailed terms for parentage [edit]

As social and biological concepts of parenthood are not necessarily coterminous, the terms "pater" and "genitor" have been used in anthropology to distinguish betwixt the human being who is socially recognised as begetter (pater) and the man who is believed to be the physiological parent (genitor); similarly the terms "mater" and "genitrix" have been used to distinguish between the woman socially recognised equally female parent (mater) and the woman believed to exist the physiological parent (genitrix).^[59] Such a distinction is useful when the individual who is considered the legal parent of the child is not the individual who is believed to be the child's biological parent. For example, in his ethnography of the Nuer, Evans-Pritchard notes that if a widow, following the death of her married man, chooses to live with a lover exterior of her deceased husband's kin grouping, that lover is simply considered genitor of any subsequent children the widow has, and her deceased husband continues to be considered the pater. Every bit a result, the lover has no legal control over the children, who may be taken away from him by the kin of the pater when they cull.^[threescore] The terms "pater" and "genitor" have also been used to assistance draw the relationship between children and their parents in the context of divorce in Britain. Following the divorce and remarriage of their parents, children find themselves using the term "mother" or "father" in relation to more than one individual, and the pater or mater who is legally responsible for the child'southward care, and whose family name the child uses, may not exist the genitor or genitrix of the child, with whom a divide parent-child human relationship may be maintained through arrangements such as visitation rights or joint custody.^[61]

Information technology is important to note that the terms "genitor" or "genetrix" practice non necessarily imply actual biological relationships based on consanguinity, but rather refer to the socially held belief that the individual is physically related to the kid, derived from culturally held ideas nigh how biology works. So, for example, the Ifugao may believe that an illegitimate child might take more than than one physical father, and so nominate more one genitor.^[62] J.A. Barnes therefore argued that it was necessary to make a farther distinction between genitor and genitrix (the supposed biological mother and father of the child), and the actual genetic father and female parent of the kid making them share their genes or genetics .

Limerick of relations [edit]

The written report of kinship may be bathetic to binary relations betwixt people. For example, if ten is the parent of y, the relation may exist symbolized as xPy. The antipodal relation, that y is the child of x, is written yP ^T x. Suppose that z is another child of x: zP ^T 10. So y is a sibling of z equally they share the parent x: zP ^T xPy → zP ^T Py . Hither the relation of siblings is expressed equally the composition P ^T P of the parent relation with its inverse.

The relation of grandparent is the limerick of the parent relation with itself: Chiliad = PP . The relation of uncle is the composition of parent with brother, while the relation of aunt composes parent with sis. Suppose x is the grandparent of y: xGy. Then y and z are cousins if yG ^T xGz.

The symbols applied here to express kinship are used more generally in algebraic logic to develop a calculus of relations with sets other than man beings.

Appendix [edit]

Degrees [edit]

Kinship	Caste of human relationship	Genetic overlap
Inbred Strain	not applicable	99%
Identical twins	first-caste	100%[63]
Total sibling	showtime-caste	50% (2−1)
Parent[64]	first-degree	l% (two−i)
Child	first-caste	50% (2−one)
One-half-sibling	2nd-caste	25% (2−2)
3/four siblings or sibling-cousin	2d-degree	37.5% (3⋅2−iii)
Grandparent	second-degree	25% (2−two)
Grandchild	second-degree	25% (2−2)
Aunt/uncle	second-degree	25% (2−2)
Niece/nephew	second-degree	25% (ii−2)
One-half-aunt/half-uncle	third-degree	12.v% (2−3)
Half-niece/half-nephew	3rd-degree	12.5% (ii−3)
Swell grandparent	third-degree	12.5% (2−iii)
Peachy grandchild	third-degree	12.5% (2−3)
Great aunt/slap-up uncle	third-degree	12.5% (ii−iii)
Great niece/great nephew	third-degree	12.5% (ii−3)
First cousin	3rd-degree	12.5% (2−three)
Double beginning cousin	second-degree	25% (2−2)
One-half-offset cousin	fourth-degree	6.25% (2−4)
Starting time cousin one time removed	quaternary-degree	vi.25% (2−4)
Second cousin	5th-degree	3.125% (two−5)
Double 2d cousin	fourth-degree	6.25% (two−4)
Triple second cousin	quaternary-degree	9.375% (three⋅2−v)
Quadruple 2d cousin	third-degree	12.five% (two−3)
Tertiary cousin	seventh-degree	0.781% (2−7)
4th cousin	9th-caste	0.20% (2−9)[65]

See also [edit]

• Ancestry
• Kin pick
• Kinism
• Kinship analysis
• Kinship terminology
• Australian Aboriginal kinship
• Bride cost
• Bride service
• Chinese kinship
• Cinderella effect
• Clan
• Consanguinity
• Darwinian anthropology
• Dynasty
• Ethnicity
• Family
• Family history
• Fictive kinship
• Genealogy
• Genetic genealogy
• Godparent
• Heredity
• Inheritance
• Interpersonal relationships
• Irish Kinship
• Lineage (anthropology)
• Nurture kinship
• Serbo-Croation kinship
• Tribe
• Business firm society

References [edit]

1. ^ Fox, Robin (1967). Kinship and Spousal relationship. Harmondsworth, United kingdom of great britain and northern ireland: Pelican Books. p. xxx.
2. ^ On Kinship and Gods in Ancient Arab republic of egypt: An Interview with Marcelo Campagno Damqatum 2 (2007)
3. ^ Wolf, Eric. 1982 Europe and the People Without History. Berkeley: University of California Press. 92
4. ^ Harner, Michael 1975 "Scarcity, the Factors of Production, and Social Development," in Population. Ecology, and Social Evolution, Steven Polgar, ed. Mouton Publishers: the Hague.
5. ^ Rivière, Peter 1987 "Of Women, Men, and Manioc", Etnologiska Studien (38).
6. ^ Skin, kin and clan : the dynamics of social categories in Ethnic Australia. McConvell, Patrick,, Kelly, Piers,, Lacrampe, Sébastien,, Australian National University Press. Acton, A.C.T. April 2018. ISBN978-1-76046-164-5. OCLC 1031832109. {{cite book}}: CS1 maint: others (link)
7. ^ Gaby, Alice Rose. 2006. A Grammar of Kuuk Thaayorre. The University of Melbourne Ph.D.
8. ^ Walsh, Michael James. 1976. The Muɹinypata Language of Northern Australia. The Australian National University.
9. ^ Oke Wale, An Introduction to Social Anthropology Second Edition, Role 2, Kinship.
10. ^ ^{a b} Monaghan, John; Simply, Peter (2000). Social & Cultural Anthropology: A Very Curt Introduction. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. pp. 86–88. ISBN978-0-nineteen-285346-2.
11. ^ Endicott, Kirk G.; Endicott, Karen L. (2008). The Headman Was a Woman: The Gender Egalitarian Batek of Malaysia. Long Grove, IL: Waveland Press, Inc. pp. 26–27. ISBN978-i-57766-526-vii.
12. ^ Houseman and White 1998b harvnb error: no target: CITEREFHouseman_and_White1998b (help)
13. ^ ^{a b} Houseman & White 1998a harvnb error: no target: CITEREFHousemanWhite1998a (help)
14. ^ Murphy, Michael Dean. "Kinship Glossary". Retrieved 2009-03-xiii .
15. ^ Lévi-Strauss, Claude (1982). The Way of the Mask. Seattle: Academy of Washington Press.
16. ^ Lévi-Strauss, Claude. 1987. Anthropology and Myth: Lectures, 1951–1982. R. Willis, trans. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
17. ^ Joyce, Rosemary A. & Susan D. Gillespie (eds.). 2000. Across Kinship: Social and Cloth Reproduction in House Societies. University of Pennsylvania Press.
18. ^ Carsten, Janet & Stephen Hugh-Jones (eds.) About the House: Lévi-Strauss and Beyond. Cambridge University Press, May 4, 1995
19. ^ Errington, Shelly (1989). Meaning and Power in a Southeast Asian Realm. Princeton NJ: Princeton University Press. p. 236.
20. ^ Haviland, William A.; Prins, Harald E. L.; McBride, Bunny; Walrath, Dana (2011). Cultural Anthropology: The Homo Claiming (13th ed.). Cengage Learning. ISBN978-0-495-81178-7.
21. ^ Notes and Queries on Anthropology. Purple Anthropological Constitute. 1951. p. 110.
22. ^ Leach, Edmund (Dec 1955). "Polyandry, Inheritance and the Definition of Wedlock". Homo. 55 (12): 182–186. doi:10.2307/2795331. JSTOR 2795331.
23. ^ Strong, Anise (2006). "Incest Laws and Absent Taboos in Roman Egypt". Ancient History Bulletin. 20.
24. ^ Lewis, N. (1983). Life in Arab republic of egypt under Roman Rule . Clarendon Press. ISBN978-0-19-814848-7.
25. ^ Frier, Bruce Westward.; Bagnall, Roger S. (1994). The Demography of Roman Egypt. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Academy Press. ISBN978-0-521-46123-eight.
26. ^ Shaw, B. D. (1992). "Explaining Incest: Brother-Sister Marriage in Graeco-Roman Egypt". Man. New Series. 27 (2): 267–299. doi:10.2307/2804054. JSTOR 2804054.
27. ^ Hopkins, Keith (1980). "Brother-Sister Spousal relationship in Roman Arab republic of egypt". Comparative Studies in Lodge and History. 22 (3): 303–354. doi:10.1017/S0010417500009385.
28. ^ remijsen, sofie. "Incest or Adoption? Brother-Sister Marriage in Roman Egypt Revisited" (PDF).
29. ^ Scheidel, Westward (1997). "Brother-sister marriage in Roman Egypt" (PDF). Periodical of Biosocial Science. 29 (3): 361–71. doi:10.1017/s0021932097003611. PMID 9881142.
30. ^ Conniff, Richard (1 August 2003). "Richard Conniff. "Go Ahead, Kiss Your Cousin."". Discovermagazine.com.
31. ^ Radcliffe-Brown, A.R., Daryll Forde (1950). African Systems of Kinship and Marriage. London: KPI Express.
32. ^ Lévi-Strauss, Claude (1963). Structural Anthropology . New York: Bones Books.
33. ^ Kuper, Adam (2005). The Reinvention of Archaic Society: Transformations of a myth. London: Routledge. pp. 179–90.
34. ^ White & Johansen 2005, Chapters 3 and 4
35. ^ Read 2001
36. ^ Wallace & Atkins 1960
37. ^ White & Johansen 2005, Affiliate iv
38. ^ Barnes, J.A. (1962). "African models in the New Guinea Highlands". Human being. 62: 5–ix. doi:10.2307/2795819. JSTOR 2795819.
39. ^ Langness, L.L. (1964). "Some problems in the conceptualization of Highlands social structures". American Anthropologist. 66 (4 pt ii): 162–182. JSTOR 668436.
40. ^ Schneider, D. 1972. What is Kinship all About. In Kinship Studies in the Morgan Centennial Yr, edited past P. Reining. Washington: Anthropological Gild of Washington.
41. ^ ^{a b} Schneider, D. 1984. A critique of the study of kinship. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
42. ^ Schneider, D. 1968. American kinship: a cultural account, Anthropology of modernistic societies series. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall.
43. ^ Morgan, Lewis Henry. 1870. Systems of consanguity and affinity of the human being family unit. Vol. 17, Smithsonian Contributions to Cognition. Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution.
44. ^ Collier, Jane Fishburne; Yanagisako, Sylvia Junko (1987). Gender and kinship: Essays toward a unified analysis. Stanford University Press.
45. ^ Carsten, Janet (2000). Cultures of relatedness: New approaches to the study of kinship. Cambridge University Press.
46. ^ Strathern, Marilyn. After nature: English kinship in the belatedly twentieth century. Cambridge University Printing.
47. ^ Carsten, Janet (1995). "The substance of kinship and the middle of the hearth". American Ethnologist. 22 (ii): 223–241. doi:10.1525/ae.1995.22.two.02a00010. S2CID 145716250.
48. ^ Thomas, Philip. (1999) No substance, no kinship? Procreation, Performativity and Temanambondro parent/child relations. In Conceiving persons: ethnographies of procreation, fertility, and growth edited by P. Loizos and P. Heady. New Brunswick, NJ: Athlone Press.
49. ^ Malinowski 1929, pp. 179–186
50. ^ Malinowski 1929, p. 195
51. ^ Malinowski 1929, p. 202
52. ^ Sahlins, Marshal (1976). The Use and Abuse of Biology .
53. ^ The netherlands, Maximilian. (2012) Social Bonding and Nurture Kinship: Compatibility between Cultural and Biological Approaches. North Charleston: Createspace Printing.
54. ^ Hamilton, Westward.D. 1987. Discriminating nepotism: expectable, common and overlooked. In Kin recognition in animals, edited by D. J. C. Fletcher and C. D. Michener. New York: Wiley.
55. ^ Holland, Maximilian (26 October 2012). Robin Fox comment (book cover). ISBN978-1480182004.
56. ^ Daly, Martin; Salmon, Catherine; Wilson, Margo (1997). Kinship: the conceptual hole in psychological studies of social cognition and shut relationships. Erlbaum.
57. ^ Lieberman, D.; Tooby, J.; Cosmides, L. (2007). "The architecture of human kin detection". Nature. 445 (7129): 727–731. Bibcode:2007Natur.445..727L. doi:10.1038/nature05510. PMC3581061. PMID 17301784.
58. ^ ^{a b} The Oxford Handbook of Evolutionary Psychology, Edited past Robin Dunbar and Louise Barret, Oxford Academy Printing, 2007, Chapter 31 Kinship and descent by Lee Conk and Drew Gerkey
59. ^ Flim-flam 1977, p. 34
60. ^ Evans-Pritchard 1951, p. 116
61. ^ Simpson 1994, pp. 831–851
62. ^ Barnes 1961, pp. 296–299
63. ^ By replacement in the definition of the notion of "generation" past meiosis". Since identical twins are non separated past meiosis, there are no "generations" between them, hence n=0 and r=1. Encounter genetic-genealogy.co.uk.
64. ^ "Kin Option". Benjamin/Cummings. Retrieved 2007-xi-25 .
65. ^ This degree of relationship is ordinarily duplicate from the relationship to a random private within the same population (tribe, country, ethnic group).

Bibliography [edit]

• Barnes, J. A. (1961). "Physical and Social Kinship". Philosophy of Science. 28 (3): 296–299. doi:10.1086/287811. S2CID 122178099.
• Benefaction, James A.; Schneider, David M. (Oct 1974). "Kinship vis-a-vis Myth Contrasts in Levi-Strauss' Approaches to Cross-Cultural Comparing". American Anthropologist. 76 (iv): 799–817. doi:10.1525/aa.1974.76.4.02a00050.
• Bowlby, John (1982). Attachment. Vol. i (2nd ed.). London: Hogarth.
• Evans-Pritchard, E. E. (1951). Kinship and Marriage among the Nuer. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
• Pull a fast one on, Robin (1977). Kinship and Union: An Anthropological Perspective. Harmondsworth: Penguin.
• Kingdom of the netherlands, Maximilian (2012). Social Bonding and Nurture Kinship: Compatibility Between Cultural and Biological Approaches. Createspace Press.
• Houseman, Michael; White, Douglas R. (1998). "Network arbitration of commutation structures: Ambilateral sidedness and property flows in Pul Eliya" (PDF). In Schweizer, Thomas; White, Douglas R. (eds.). Kinship, Networks and Exchange. Cambridge University Press. pp. 59–89. Archived from the original (PDF) on 10 June 2019.
• Houseman, Michael; White, Douglas R. (1998). "Taking Sides: Wedlock Networks and Dravidian Kinship in Lowland South America" (PDF). In Godelier, Maurice; Trautmann, Thomas; F.Tjon Sie Fat. (eds.). Transformations of Kinship. Smithsonian Institution Press. pp. 214–243. Archived from the original (PDF) on 7 June 2019.
• Malinowski, Bronislaw (1929). The Sexual Life of Savages in North Western Melanesia. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
• Read, Dwight W. (2001). "Formal analysis of kinship terminologies and its relationship to what constitutes kinship". Anthropological Theory. 1 (2): 239–267. CiteSeerX10.i.1.169.2462. doi:10.1177/14634990122228719. Archived from the original on 2013-01-11.
• Simpson, Bob (1994). "Bringing the 'Unclear' Family Into Focus: Divorce and Re-Wedlock in Contemporary Britain". Human being. 29 (4): 831–851. doi:10.2307/3033971. JSTOR 3033971.
• Trautmann, Thomas R. (2008). Lewis Henry Morgan and the Invention of Kinship, New Edition. ISBN978-0-520-06457-seven.
• Trautmann, Thomas R.; Whiteley, Peter M. (2012). Crow-Omaha : new low-cal on a archetype problem of kinship assay. Tucson: University of Arizona Press. ISBN978-0-8165-0790-0.
• Wallace, Anthony F.; Atkins, John (1960). "The Meaning of Kinship Terms". American Anthropologist. 62 (one): 58–80. doi:x.1525/aa.1960.62.i.02a00040.
• White, Douglas R.; Johansen, Ulla C. (2005). Network Analysis and Ethnographic Problems: Process Models of a Turkish Nomad Association. New York: Rowman and Littlefield. ISBN978-0-7391-1892-four. Archived from the original on 2013-ten-05. Retrieved 2008-02-09 .

External links [edit]

Look upwards kinship in Wiktionary, the free lexicon.

Wikimedia Commons has media related to Kinship.

• Introduction into the study of kinship AusAnthrop: research, resources and documentation
• The Nature of Kinship: An Introduction to Descent Systems and Family Organization Dennis O'Neil, Palomar Higher, San Marcos, CA.
• Kinship and Social Organization: An Interactive Tutorial Brian Schwimmer, Academy of Manitoba.
• Degrees of Kinship According to Anglo-Saxon Civil Police – Useful Chart (Kurt R. Nilson, Esq. : heirbase.com)
• Catholic Encyclopedia "Duties of Relatives"

popeformoush.blogspot.com

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinship

Share this post