Kinship Terminology as a (Still) Significant Anthropological Analytical Category
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.21301/eap.v18i2.3Keywords:
kinship, terminology, anthropological analysis, system, type, transformations, practicesAbstract
This paper explains the concept of kinship terminology as an analytical category in anthropology and highlights its importance. Special attention is given to the differences in approach and methodology employed in anthropology compared to comparative philology and historical linguistics when it comes to this type of research. In addition to discussing the typology of kinship terminology systems, the paper addresses current knowledge regarding two longstanding questions: 1. the relationship between kinship terminology and non-linguistic elements (principles of social organisation and kinship behaviour), and 2. historical changes and transformations of kinship terminological systems.
From the perspective of contemporary anthropology, when interpreting the prevalence of different types of kinship terminology worldwide, it is necessary to consider and distinguish between two principles of grouping: the ‘principle of propinquity’ and the ‘principle of form.’ The principle of propinquity can be applied when dealing with societies that are linguistically, geographically, and historically connected. When terminologies with the same formal characteristics, including identical rules of kinship classification, exist in geographically, linguistically, and historically distinct and distant societies, the principle of form is applied, which focuses more on logical rather than historical connections between systems.
While earlier studies focused on finding logically powerful and empirically efficient analytical means of classification, in recent decades the emphasis has increasingly shifted towards broader social, historical, and cognitive issues and processes. Contemporary approaches to kinship terminology aim to identify and explain variations rather than categorise such systems into one general category or another. Because what matters is not which category fits better, but rather which features can be combined in different ways to form a concrete system in the real world.
Downloads
References
Barry, Laurent S. 2000. „Un demi-siècle s’écolulé”. L’Homme (le numèro spécial La question de parenté) 154-155 : 9-20.
Barnard, Alan. 1994. „Rules and Prohibitions: The Form and Content of Human Kinship”. In Companion Encyclopedia of Anthropology, 783-812. New York and London Routledge.
Bjeletić, Marta. 1996. „Od devet brata krv (fitonimi i termini srodstva)”. Kodovi slovenskih kultura 1 : 89 – 101.
Blagojević, Miloš. 2001. „Srodstvena terminologija i društvena hijerarhija u srednjevekovnoj Srbiji”. Zbornik Etnografskog muzeja u Beogradu 1901 – 2001:115 – 129.
Dumont, Louis. 1953. „The Dravidian Kinship Terminology as an Expresion of Marriage” Man 53 : 34-39.
Dumont, Louis. 1983. Affinity as Value. Marrige Alliance in South India, with Comparative Essays on Australia. Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press.
Fortes, Mayer. 1969. Kinship and the Social Order: The Legacy of Lewis Henry Morgan. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
Fox, Robin. 1967. Kinship and Marriage. London: Penguin Books.
Friedrich, Paul. 1964. „Semantic Structure and Social Structure: an Instance from Russian”. In Explorations in Cultural Anthropology: essays in honor of Grorge Peter Murdock, edited by Word H. Goodenough, 131 – 166.
Godelier, Maurice. 2004. Méthamorphoses de la parenté. Paris : Fayard.
Godelier, Maurice, Thomas R Trautmann and Franklin E. Tjon Sie Fat. 1998. „Introduction”. In Transformations of Kinship, edited by Maurice Godelier, Thomas R. Trautmann and Franklin E. Tjon Sie Fat, 1-28. Washington and London : Smithsonian Institution Press.
Godelier, Maurice. 1998. „Afterward: Transformations and Lines od Evolution”. In Transformations of Kinship, edited by Maurice Godelier, Thomas R. Trautmann and Franklin E. Tjon Sie Fat, 386-419. Washington and London : Smithsonian Institution Press.
Godelier, Maurice, Thomas R. Trautmann and Franklin E. Tjon Sie Fat (eds.). 1998b. Transformations of Kinship. Washington and London: Smithsonian Institution Press.
Goodenough, Ward H. 1956. „Componential Analysis and the Study of Meaning”. Language 32 (1) : 195-216.
Héritier, Francoise. 1981. L’exercice de la parenté. Paris : Hautes Études, Gallimard, Le Seuil.
Hua, Cai. 2001. A Society without Fathers or Husbands. The Na of China. New York: Zone Books.
Ivanović, Zorica. 2008. „O izučavanju srodstva u poslednjim decenijama dvadesetog veka”. Etnoantropološki problemi n.s. 3 (2) : 107-138.
Ivanović, Zorica. 2013. „Još jednom o formativnom periodu antropologije: značaj promene pojma istorije”. Etnološke sveske 21 (10) : 183-199.
Keesing , Roger M. 1972. „The Lure of Kinship”. In Kinship Studies in the Morgan Centenial Year, edited by Priscilla Reining, 17-31. Washington: Anthropological Society of Washington.
Kroeber, Alfred L. 1909. „Classificatory systems of relations”. The Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute 39: 77-81.
Kreber, Alfred L. 1969. „Klasifikacioni sistemi srodstva”. U Teorije o društvu. Osnovi savremene sociološke teorije, knj. 1, uredio Dragoljub Mićunović, 263-267. Beograd: Vuk Karadžić.
Kronenfeld, David B. 2001. „Introduction. The uses of formal analysis re cognitive and social issues“. Anthropological Theory - Special Issue: Kinship 1 (2) : 147-172.
Kryukov, М. V. 1998. „The Big Picture: The Sinhrono-Diahronic Method and the Multidirectionality of Kinship Transformations”. In Transformations of Kinship, edited by Maurice Godelier, Thomas R. Trautmann and Franklin E. Tjon Sie Fat, 294-313. Washington and London : Smithsonian Institution Press.
Лавровский, П. A. 1867. Коренное значенıе въ насванıхь родства у Сла¬вя¬нъ, Санк¬тп¬етербургъ : Академıи на¬у-кь, то¬мь II, N° 4.
Leach, Edmund R. 1945. „Jinghpaw Kinship Terminology”. The Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland 75 (1/2) : 59-72.
Lowie, Robert. 1928. „A note on relationship terminologies”. American Anthropologist 30 : 263-267.
Malinowski, Bronislav. 1930. „Kinship”. Man 30: 19-29.
Morgan, Lewis Henry. 1997. Systems of Consanguinity and Affinity of the Human Family. Lincoln and London: University of Nebrasca Press.
Murdock, George P. 1972. De la structure sociale. Paris : Payot.
Olderogge, A. D. 1961. „Several Problems in the Study of Kinship Systems”. Current Anthropology 2 (2): 103-107.
Parkin, Robert. 1998. „Dravidian and Iroquois in South Asia”. In Transformations of Kinship, edited by Maurice Godelier, Thomas R. Trautmann and Franklin E. Tjon Sie Fat, 253 – 270. Washington and London : Smithsonian Institution Press.
Pavković, Nikola F. 1981. Morganovo proučavanje drevnog društva. Pogovor u Drevno Društvo. Luis H. Morgan. 477-489. Beograd: Prosveta.
Rakić, Radomir D. 1991. Terminologija srodstva kod Srba. Beograd: Etnoantropološki problemi.
Resek, Carl. 1960. Lewis Henry Morgan: American Scholar. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Schefler, Harold W., Floyd G. Lounsbury. 1971. A Study in Structural Semantics. The Siriono System of Kinship. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice–Hall Inc.
Tjon Sie Fat, Franklin E. 1999. „Trajectoires et transformations: les automates d′arbres binaires pour l′analyse des variation terminologiques”. Dans La production du social. Autour de Maurice Godelier, sous la direction de Philippe Descola, Jacques Hammel et Pierr Lemmonier, 419-432. Paris: Fayard.
Trautmann, Thomas R. 2001. „The whole history of kinship terminology in three chapters”. Anthropological Theory 1 (2): 268-287.
Trautmann, Thomas R. 2000. „India and the Study of Kinship Terminologies”. L’Homme. Question de parenté 154-155: 559-570.
Trautmann, Thomas R. 1995. Dravidian Kinship. London, New Delhi: Altamira Press, Sage Puplications.
Trautmann, Thomas R. 1999. „La parenté comme langage”. Dans La production du social. Autour de Maurice Godelier, sous la direction de Philippe Descola, Jacques Hammel et Pierr Lemmonier, 433-444. Paris: Fayard.
Trautmann, Thomas R. 1987. Lewis Henry Morgan and the Invention of Kinship. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Trautmann, Thomas and Robert H. Barnes. 1998. „′Dravidian′, ′Iroquois′, and ′Crow-Omaha′ in North American Perspective”. In Transformations of Kinship, edited by Maurice Godelier, Thomas R. Trautmann and Franklin E. Tjon Sie Fat, 27-57. Washington and London : Smithsonian Institution Press.
Tooker, Elisabeth. 1997. „Introduction”. In Systems of Consaguinity and Affinity of the Human Family, Henry Morgan, vii-xix. Lincoln and London: University of Nebrasca Press.
Viveiros de Castro, Eduardo. 1998. „Dravidian and Related Kinship Systems”. In In Transformations of Kinship, edited by Maurice Godelier, Thomas R. Trautmann and Franklin E. Tjon Sie Fat, 332-383. Washington and London: Smithsonian Institution Press.
Zimmermann, Francis. 1993. Enquête sur la parenté. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
ERIH PLUS - European Reference Index for the Humanities
World Cat
AnthroSerbia
