Crow-Omaha Research Papers - Academia.edu (original) (raw)

Comparative ethnological research suggests that there is a certain uniformity to the patterns organising relationship terminology at a global level, which has made it possible to identify the general regularities that govern them. This paper deals with an attempt to reconstruct the semantic evolution of the Old Lithuanian appellative mótė “wife; woman mother” through the prism of the changes taking place in the Baltic kinship system. It is suggested that the initial kinship system of the Balts coincided with the Omaha-type kinship-terminology system, formed in the Proto-Baltic period in connection with the popularization of cyclical form of generalized exchange between patrilineal descent groups, which act as a segments of larger exogamous groups. This exchange was based on a prescriptive unilateral marriage of a man with a matrilateral cross-cousin (mother’s brother’s daughter) or its more distantly related collateral counterpart, called “mother” in the Proto-Baltic kinship terminology (i.e. relative from the mother’s descent group). The high level of compliance with this defined norm regulating martial selection was maintained amongst Lithuanians probably until the mid-12th century, when, against the background of deepening socio-economic differences, there was a crisis of this form of matrimonial exchange. Despite this, the terminology of the Omaha type survived fragmentarily in the Lithuanian language until the 16th and 17th centuries, thus making it possible to try to highlight the structural features resulting from it. (The author assumes no responsibility for the English summary from the attatched paper).

- by
- •
- Kinship (Anthropology), Social and Cultural Anthropology, Social History, Baltic languages
- by Mauro W B Almeida
- •
- Crow-Omaha, Mathematical Antropololy, Dravidian Kinship

A terminologia de parentesco Kraho foi primeiro descrita por Julio Melatti e tem entre suas características fundamentais a obliquidade e o princípio de unidade do grupo de irmãos do mesmo sexo. Este texto tem por objetivo revisitar a clássica descrição de Melatti sob a luz de novos dados obtidos entre os Kraho, bem como de dados de outros povos Timbira – com destaque para a contribuição de Maria Elisa Ladeira sobre os regimes de troca matrimonial e onomástica entre os Kraho e Canela, e para a terminologia Apinajé descrita por Roberto DaMatta. A partir dos dados, proponho que é possível pensar um sistema terminológico comum aos povos Timbira. Dentre outras coisas, o artigo procura vislumbrar como a terminologia de parentesco se integra com as trocas matrimoniais e onomásticas, mesmo entre povos que, como os Timbira, não possuem regra positiva de casamento.

- by Carlos Paulino
- •
- Kinship (Anthropology), Crow-Omaha, Indios Timbira, Kraho Indians

German Dziebel considers it more likely that the Crow-Omaha terminologies derive from terminologies that already have the vertical skewing associated with the Crow-Omaha terminologies than from terminologies without such a property. Thus, he argues, the horizontal skewing of genealogical relations that is characteristic of the Iroquois terminologies makes them unlikely candidates for being the kind of terminology from which Crow-Omaha terminologies originated. Vertical skewing does occur with self-reciprocal kin terms, and for this reason Dziebel posits that the Crow-Omaha terminologies had their origin in terminologies with selfreciprocal kin terms. While Dziebel is correct that the Iroquois terminologies lack vertical skewing, vertical skewing is introduced by simply adding the equation, 'son' of 'maternal uncle' = 'maternal uncle' to an Iroquois terminology, along with its logical implications for kin terms relations, to derive an Omaha terminology, or add the equation 'daughter' of 'sister of father' = 'sister of father' to derive a Crow terminology. One of these equations may have been added to the kinship terminology of a group with an Iroquois terminology when unilineal descent groups were introduced into the social organization of that group since the added equation would resolve what otherwise would be structural inconsistency between an Iroquois terminology and the introduced unilineal descent groups.

Currently, the main source for the reconstruction of the most ancient history of humankind is archeology, which almost by definition makes it possible to restore only just a few elements of the most ancient human culture (naturally, almost exclusively – material culture). A mere introduction of comparative linguistic data makes it possible to significantly refine our reconstruction of a respective culture. If a certain linguistic Urheimat may be localized in space and in time within the area and lifespan of a certain archaeological culture, this suggests that we may have an idea of the language spoken by respective population, as the application of comparative linguistic methods allows us to reconstruct the vocabulary of the carriers of the respective protolanguage, that makes it possible to identify a set of terms denoting the realities of family organization, political attitudes, beliefs, etc. A very important part of the reconstructed vocabulary is constituted by the kinship terminology. As is well known (and as is demonstrated in this article again), the kinship terminology displays rather strong correlations with respective types of kinship organization, which could allow to reconstruct important features of clan and family structure of the respective populations. This reconstruction can be further verified by using archaeological and genetic data. It is demonstrated that the papers presented at the International Workshop ‘Murdock and Goody Re-visited: (Pre)history and evolution of Eurasian and African family systems’ that was organized in April 2015 by the Max Planck Institute for Social Anthropology suggest that we are close to having all the necessary ingredients to undertake such a program of a deep historical reconstruction.