SEARCH

SEARCH BY CITATION

References

  • Barnard, A. 1978. ‘Universal systems of kin categorization’, African Studies 37: 6981.
  • Brumann, C. 2003. ‘“All the flesh kindred that ever I see”: a reconsideration of family and kinship in utopian communes’, Comparative Studies in Society and History 45: 395421.
  • Buller, D. J. 2005. Adapting minds: evolutionary psychology and the persistent quest for human nature. Cambridge , MA : MIT Press.
  • Burch, E. 1975. Eskimo kinsmen: changing family relationships in northwest Alaska. St Paul : West Publishing Company.
  • Buss, D. M. 2004. Evolutionary psychology: the new science of mind, 2nd edn. Boston : Pearson.
  • Bynum, C. W. 1982. Holy feast and holy fast: the religious significance of food to medieval women. Berkeley : University of California Press.
  • Campion, N. 1994. The great year: astrology, millenarianism, and history in the Western tradition. London : Penguin.
  • Carsten, J. 1997. The heat of the hearth: the process of kinship in a Malay fishing community. Oxford : Clarendon Press.
  • Carsten, J. 2000. ‘Introduction: cultures of relatedness’, in J.Carsten (ed.), Cultures of relatedness: new approaches to the study of kinship, 136. Cambridge : University Press.
  • Conkey, M. W. 1991. ‘Original narratives: the political economy of gender in archaeology’, in M.Di Leonardo (ed.), Gender at the crossroads of knowledge: feminist anthropology in the postmodern era, 10239. Berkeley : University of California Press.
  • Conklin, B. A. 2001a. Consuming grief: compassionate cannibalism in an Amazonian society. Austin : University of Texas Press.
  • Conklin, B. A. 2001b. ‘Women's blood, warrior's blood, and the conquest of vitality in Amazonia’, in T. A.Gregor and D.Tuzin (eds.), Gender in Amazonia and Melanesia: an exploration of the comparative method, 14174. Berkeley : University of California Press.
  • Conklin, B. A. 2002. ‘“Thus are our bodies, thus was our custom”: mortuary cannibalism in an Amazonian society’, in D.Hicks (ed.), Ritual and belief: readings in the anthropology of religion, 2nd edn, 21035. Boston : McGraw-Hill.
  • Daly, M. and M. Wilson. 1988. Homicide. New York : Aldine de Gruyter.
  • Damas, D. 1972. ‘The structure of Central Eskimo associations’, in L.Guemple (ed.), Alliance in Eskimo society, 4055. Seattle : American Ethnological Society.
  • D'Andrade, R. G. 1995. The development of cognitive anthropology. Cambridge : University Press.
  • Engels, F. 1972. The origin of the family, private property, and the state in the light of the researches of Lewis H. Morgan. New York : International Publishers.
  • Feinberg, R. 1981. ‘What is Polynesian kinship all about? Ethnology 20: 11531.
  • Feinberg, R. 2004. Anuta: Polynesian lifeways in the twenty-first century, 2nd edn. Long Grove : Waveland Press.
  • Feng, H. 1948. The Chinese kinship system. Cambridge , MA : Harvard University Press.
  • Fildes, V. 1988. Wet nursing: a history from antiquity to the present. Oxford : Blackwell.
  • Flanagan, C. 1999. Early socialization: sociability and attachment. London : Routledge.
  • Franklin, S. and S. McKinnon. 2001. ‘Introduction’, in S.Franklin and S.McKinnon (eds.), Relative values: reconfiguring kinship studies, 125. Durham : Duke University Press.
  • Gardner, P. M. 1972. ‘The Paliyans’, in M. G.Bicchieri (ed.), Hunters and gatherers today, 40447. New York : Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
  • Goodenough, W. H. 1951. Property, kin, and community on Truk. Yale University Publications in Anthropology No. 46. New Haven : Yale University Press.
  • Gregor, T. A. 1977. Mehinaku: the drama of daily life in a Brazilian Indian village. Chicago : University of Chicago Press.
  • Gross, P. R. and N. Levitt. 1994. Higher superstition: the Academic Left and its quarrels with science. Baltimore : The Johns Hopkins University Press.
  • Guemple, L. 1972. ‘Kinship and alliance in Belcher Island Eskimo society’, in L.Guemple (ed.), Alliance in Eskimo society, 5678. Seattle : American Ethnological Society.
  • Heider, K. G. 1978. ‘Accounting for variation: a nonformal analysis of Grand Valley kinship terms’, Journal of Anthropological Research 34: 21962.
  • Hiatt, L. R. 1965. Kinship and conflict: a study of an Aboriginal community in northern Arnhem Land. Canberra : Australian National University Press.
  • Hooper, A. 1970. ‘Adoption in the Society Islands’, in V.Carroll (ed.), Adoption in eastern Oceania, 5270. Honolulu : University of Hawaii Press.
  • Howard, A., R. H. Heighton, C. E. Jordan and R.G. Gallimore. 1970. ‘Traditional and modern adoption patterns in Hawaii’, in V.Carroll (ed.), Adoption in eastern Oceania, 2151. Honolulu : University of Hawaii Press.
  • Kaplan, J. O. 1975. The Piaroa, a people of the Orinoco Basin: a study in kinship and marriage. Oxford : Clarendon Press.
  • Keen, I. 1995. ‘Metaphor and metalanguage: “group” in northeast Arnhem Land’, American Ethnologist 22: 50227.
  • Keesing, R. M. 1969. ‘On quibblings over squabblings of siblings: new perspectives on kin terms and role behavior’, Southwestern Journal of Anthropology 22: 34653.
  • Keesing, R. M. 1971. ‘Descent, residence, and cultural codes’, in L. R.Hiatt and C.Jayawardena (eds.), Anthropology in Oceania: essays presented to Ian Hogbin, 12138. San Francisco : Chandler Publishing Company.
  • Kensinger, K. M. 1995. How real people ought to live: the Cashinahua of eastern Peru. Prospect Heights : Waveland Press.
  • Kroeber, A. L. 1909. ‘Classificatory systems of relationship’, Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute 39: 7784.
  • Kronenfeld, D. B. 1975. ‘Kroeber v. Radcliffe-Brown on kinship behavior: the Fanti test case’, Man (N.S.) 10: 25784.
  • Kronenfeld, D. B. 1996. Plastic glasses and Church Fathers: semantic extension from the ethnoscience tradition. New York : Oxford University Press.
  • Kuper, A. 1976. ‘Radcliffe-Brown, Junod, and the mother's brother in South Africa’, Man (N.S.) 11: 11115.
  • Kuper, A. 1982. ‘Lineage theory: a critical retrospect’, Annual Review of Anthropology 11: 7195.
  • Kuper, A. 1988. The invention of primitive society: transformations of an illusion. London : Routledge.
  • Kuper, A. 1999. Culture: the anthropologists' account. Cambridge , MA : Harvard University Press.
  • Lakoff, G. 1987. Women, fire, and dangerous things: what categories reveal about the Mind. Chicago : University of Chicago Press.
  • Levi-Strauss, C. 1969. The elementary structures of kinship. London : Eyre & Spottiswoode.
  • Lowie, R. H. 1920. Primitive society. New York : Liveright.
  • Lowie, R. H. 1928. ‘A note on relationship terminologies’, American Anthropologist 30: 26566.
  • Malinowski, B. 1913. The family among the Australian Aborigines: a sociological study. London : University of London Press.
  • Malinowski, B. 1929. ‘Kinship’, Encyclopaedia Britannica 13: 4039.
  • McConvell, P., and Alpher, B. 2002. ‘On the Omaha trail in Australia: tracking skewing from east to west’, Anthropological Forum 12: 15975.
  • McKinnon, S. 1991. From a shattered sun: hierarchy, gender, and alliance in the Tanimbar Islands. Madison : University of Wisconsin Press.
  • McKinnon, S. 1995a. ‘American kinship/American incest: asymmetries in a scientific discourse’, in S.Yanagisako and C.Delaney (eds.), Naturalizing power: essays in feminist cultural analysis, 2546. New York : Routledge.
  • McKinnon, S. 1995b. ‘Houses and hierarchy: the view from a South Moluccan society’, in J.Carsten and S.Hugh-Jones (eds.), About the house: Levi-Strauss and beyond, 17088. Cambridge : University Press.
  • McKinnon, S. 2000. ‘Domestic exceptions: Evans-Pritchard and the creation of Nuer patrilineality and equality’, Cultural Anthropology 15: 3583.
  • McKinnon, S. 2001. ‘The economies in kinship and the paternity of culture: origin stories in kinship theory’, in S.Franklin and S.McKinnon (eds.), Relative values: reconfiguring kinship studies, 277301. Durham : Duke University Press.
  • McKinnon, S. 2005a. Neo-liberal genetics: the myths and moral tales of evolutionary psychology. Chicago : Prickly Paradigm Press.
  • McKinnon, S. 2005b. ‘On kinship and marriage: a critique of the genetic and gender calculus of evolutionary psychology’, in S.McKinnon and S.Silverman (eds.), Complexities: beyond nature and nurture, 10631. Chicago : University of Chicago Pres.
  • Middleton, K. 2000. ‘How Karembola men become mothers’, in J.Carsten (ed.), Cultures of relatedness: new approaches to the study of kinship, 10427. Cambridge : University Press.
  • Murdock, G. P. 1959. ‘Cross-language parallels in parental kin terms’, Anthropological Linguistics 1: 15.
  • Murphy, R. F. 1979. ‘Lineage and lineality in Lowland South America’, in M. L.Margolis and W. E.Carter (eds.), Brazil: anthropological perspectives; essays in honor of Charles Wagley, 21724. New York : Columbia University Press.
  • Myers, F. R. 1986. Pintupi country, Pintupi self: sentiment, place, and politics among Western Desert Aborigines. Washington : Smithsonian Institution Press.
  • Oyama, S. 1985. The ontogeny of information: developmental systems and evolution. Durham : Duke University Press.
  • Patterson, M. 2005. ‘Introduction: reclaiming paradigms lost’, in Paradigms lost? The study of kinship in the twenty-first century M.Patterson (ed.), The Australian Journal of Anthropology (special issue) 16: 117.
  • Peterson, N. 1997. ‘Demand sharing: sociobiology and the pressure for generosity among foragers’, in F.Merlan, J.Morton and A.Rumsey (eds.), Scholar and sceptic: Australian Aboriginal studies in honour of L.R. Hiatt, 17190. Canberra : Aboriginal Studies Press.
  • Pinker, S. 2002. The blank slate: the modern denial of human nature. New York : Viking.
  • Radcliffe-Brown, A. R. 1931. The social organization of Australian tribes. Oceania Monographs No. 1. Sydney : University of Sydney Press.
  • Radcliffe-Brown, A. R. 1941. ‘The study of kinship systems’, The Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute 71: 118.
  • Roscoe, P. B. 1994. ‘Amity and aggression: a symbolic theory of incest’, Man (N.S.) 29: 4976.
  • Sahlins, M. D. 1976. The use and abuse of biology. Ann Arbor : University of Michigan Press.
  • Scheffler, H. W. 1973. ‘Kinship, descent, and alliance’, in J. J.Honigmann (ed.), Handbook of social and cultural anthropology, 74793. Chicago : Rand McNally.
  • Scheffler, H. W. 1976. ‘The “meaning” of kinship in American culture: another view’, in K. H.Basso and H. A.Selby (eds.), Meaning in anthropology, 5791. Albuquerque : University of New Mexico Press.
  • Scheffler, H. W. 1987. ‘Markedness in systems of kin classification’, Journal of Anthropological Research 43: 20321.
  • Scheffler, H. W. and F. G. Lounsbury. 1971. A study in structural semantics: the Siriono kinship system. Englewood Cliffs : Prentice-Hall.
  • Schneider, D. M. 1968. American kinship: a cultural account. Englewood Cliffs : Prentice-Hall.
  • Schneider, D. M. 1972. ‘What is kinship all about?’ in P.Reining (ed.), Kinship studies in the Morgan centennial year, 3263. Washington : The Anthropological Society of Washington.
  • Schneider, D. M. 1984. A critique of the study of kinship. Ann Arbor : University of Michigan Press.
  • Shapiro, W. 1973. ‘Residential grouping in northeast Arnhem Land’, Man (N.S.) 8: 36583.
  • Shapiro, W. 1979. Social organization in Aboriginal Australia. Canberra : Australian National University Press.
  • Shapiro, W. 1981. Miwuyt marriage: the cultural anthropology of affinity in northeast Arnhem Land. Philadelphia : Institute for the Study of Human Issues.
  • Shapiro, W. 1982. ‘Review article: the place of cognitive extensionism in the history of anthropological thought’, The Journal of the Polynesian Society 91: 25797.
  • Shapiro, W. 1995a. ‘Fuzziness, structure-dependency, and “structural anthropology”: an extended reply to Parkin’, Journal of the Anthropological Society of Oxford 26: 19714.
  • Shapiro, W. 1995b. ‘Sex, violence, and “cultural constructionism”’, The Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute 1: 62526.
  • Shapiro, W. 1997. ‘Dr. Hiatt and Mr. Brown: Gidjingali sociality and culture theory’, in F.Merlan, J.Morton and A.Rumsey (eds.), Scholar and sceptic: Australian Aboriginal Studies in honour of L.R. Hiatt, 191210. Canberra : Aboriginal Studies Press.
  • Shapiro, W. 1998. ‘Ideology, “history of religions”, and hunter-gatherer studies’, The Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute 33: 489510.
  • Shapiro, W. 2005a. ‘Kinship’, in The Berkshire Encyclopedia of World History: 108386.
  • Shapiro, W. 2005b. ‘Universal systems of kin categorization as primitivist projects’, Anthropological Forum 15: 4559.
  • Shapiro, W. 2008. ‘Innatism in the thought of A.L. Kroeber’, Anthropological Forum (in press).
  • Shimizu, A. 1991. ‘On the notion of kinship’, Man (N.S.) 26: 377403.
  • Silk, J. B. 1980. ‘Adoption and kinship in Oceania’, American Anthropologist 82: 799820.
  • Silk, J. B. 1987a. ‘Adoption among the Inuit’, Ethos 15: 32030.
  • Silk, J. B. 1987b. ‘Adoption and fosterage in human societies: adaptations or enigmas? Cultural Anthropology 2: 3949.
  • Stinchcombe, A. L. 1968. Constructing social theories. New York : Harcourt Brace & World.
  • Tax, S. 1955. ‘The social organization of the Fox Indians’, in F.Eggan (ed.), Social anthropology of North American tribes, 24182. Chicago : University of Chicago Press.
  • Tobias, S. 1997. Faces of feminism: an activist's reflections on the women's movement. Boulder : Westview Press.
  • Tooker, E. 1971. ‘Clans and moieties in North America’, Current Anthropology 12: 35776.
  • Vilaca, A. 2000. ‘Relations between funerary cannibalism and warfare cannibalism: the question of predation’, Ethnos 65: 83106.
  • Vilaca, A. 2002. ‘Making kin out of others in Amazonia’, The Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute 8: 34765.
  • Waltner, A. 1996. ‘Kinship between the lines: the patriline, the concubine, and the adopted son in late Imperial China’, in M. J.Maynes, A.Waltner, B.Soland and U.Strasser (eds.), Gender, kinship, power: a comparative and interdisciplinary history, 6778. New York : Routledge.
  • Yalman, N. O. 1962. ‘The structure of the Sinhalese kindred: a re-examination of the Dravidian terminology’, American Anthropologist 64: 54875.
  • Yanagisako, S. and C. Delaney. 1995. ‘Naturalizing power’, in S.Yanagisako and C.Delaney (eds.), Naturalizing power: essays in feminist cultural analysis, 122. New York : Routledge.
  • Yeatman, A. 1983. ‘The procreative model: the social ontological basis of the gender- kinship system’, Social Analysis 14: 330.