University of Pittsburgh- Of the Commonwealth System of Higher Education

Panoan Marriage Sections: A Comparative Perspective

Author(s): Alf Hornborg
Source: Ethnology, Vol. 32, No. 1 (Winter, 1993), pp. 101-108
Published by: University of Pittsburgh- Of the Commonwealth System of Higher Education
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3773548 .
Accessed: 22/06/2014 13:10

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

University of Pittsburgh- Of the Commonwealth System of Higher Education is collaborating with JSTOR to
digitize, preserve and extend access to Ethnology.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 62.122.79.21 on Sun, 22 Jun 2014 13:10:33 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 PANOAN MARRIAGE SECTIONS:
A COMPARATIVE PERSPECTIVE

'J^\:%1S~~~i , i ~Alf
^, Hornborg
:J? fA - Universityof Gothenburg
ey^e S , - . ., .

Almost50 yearsago, GeorgePeterMurdock(1949:56)couldassertthatsystemsof

marriagesectionshad "neverbeenreportedoutsideof Australiaanda limitedareain
Melanesia." Since then, ethnographersof several Pano-speakingpeoples of
southeasternPeru have given us reason to revise Murdock'sassessment. The
Cashinahua,Sharanahua, andMayoruna haveapparently maintained systemsof social
classificationwhich strongly resemblethe classical, four-sectionsystem of the
AustralianKariera(Kensinger1984b; Siskind 1973:55,62;Fields and Merrifield
1980). ThisarticlediscussesthesePanoansystemsin lightof comparative Amazonian
ethnography, and shows how they canbe understood as a way of cognitive
alleviating
inconsistenciesgenerated in the articulationof emergent, exogamous descent
categoriesand cross-cousinmarriagein small, endogamousgroups. Viewed as one
of several possible strategiesfor avoidingsuch inconsistencies,Panoanmarriage
classesmay shed some lighton the emergenceof sectionsystemsin general.
Duringthe pasttwo decades,Dumont's(1953)two-lineinterpretation of Dravidian
terminologies from southern India has been influentialin our
shaping understanding
of social classificationin lowlandSouthAmerica(Rivi~re1973; OveringKaplan
1973;Kensinger1979, 1984a;Schwerin1982). The definingfeatureof a Dravidian
system is that the termsfor cross-collaterals are the same as those for affines (cf.
Buchler and Selby 1968:233; Shapiro 1984:2). Two-line terminologieshave
repeatedlybeen dissociatedfrom the phenomenonof unilinealdescent,with which
they need not but apparentlymay co-exist.
The kin-affinedivisionof Dravidiansystemsis foundedon principlesdistinctly
differentfrom those underlyingsibs or moieties. Althoughthey are equivalentin
termsof the zero-generation oppositionof parallel-cousins and cross-cousins,in the
firstascendinggenerationthetwo modesof classificationwill disagree(Shapiro1970;
Trautmann1981:176-177). Dumont's(1953) model of the Dravidiansystem is
implicitlycognatic in that it groupsboth F and M in the supra-categoryof kin,
whereasbothMBandFZ areterminological affines. A unilinealprinciple,of course,
wouldopposeF andFZ, on the one hand,againstM andMB, on the other. In other
words,a Dravidianterminologyappearsto classifyFZ as affine,whilein a patrilineal
descentsystemshe is unquestionably a kinswoman.My questionis: how do societies
which allegedly feature both a Dravidianterminologyand patrilinealdescent
categoriesresolvethis contradiction?
Thougha kin-affinedichotomyis fundamental to bothunilinealdescentcategories
andDravidianterminologies,the contradiction betweenthesetwo waysof delineating

101

This content downloaded from 62.122.79.21 on Sun, 22 Jun 2014 13:10:33 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
102 ETHNOLOGY

it seems difficultto reconcile. I suggestthatthe Panoanmarriageclass system, by

restrictingthe recognitionof kin-affinedichotomiesto (1) alternategenerationsand
(2) same-sexrelativesonly, representsa reconciliation,perhapsevena steppingstone,
betweenthe cross/parallellogic of Dravidianclassificationandunilinealdescent.
Shapiro(1970) demonstrates how two-sectionterminologieswill exhibitdifferent
structuresif associatedwith two namedsuper-categories (such as the exogamous
moietiesof the KarieraandotherAustraliansystems)thanif it has no corresponding
"sociocentricbasis,"as amongthe BeaverIndiansof BritishColumbia,who have a
Dravidian,two-lineterminologybutno moieties(cf. Ridington1969). Whereasthe
formerincludeFZ in the "lineal"(i.e., "kin")andM in the affinalcategory,the latter
reversestheirpositions. Shapiro(1970:386)observesthata confusionof these two
types "pervadesmuchof the literatureon two-sectionsystems."Keesing(1975:108)
has subsequentlyillustratedthisobservation by includingFZ = WMin the Dravidian
of
category "kin," while classifyingM as "affine"(!)In the samevein, Buchlerand
Selby (1968:135) erroneouslyconcludethat Dravidiansystemsare patrilineal(cf.
Needham1971).
Anotherdifferencebetweenthe two models,andone thatmay help us solve the
contradiction,is evidentfrom Dumont's(1953:35)assertionthat a relationshipof
affinityin Dravidiansystemsis recognizedprimarilybetweenpersonsof the samesex.
Similar observationshave been made by Overing Kaplan (1973:562) and by
Trautmann (1981:79,174). By implication,Dravidianterminologies opposetwo male
and two female, same-sex "lines," yielding an egocentricsystem of parallel
transmission.We canthusdetecta formalcongruitybetweentwo pervasivefeatures
of indigenousSouth Americansocial organization;that is, between Dravidian
terminologiesand what Schefflerand Lounsbury(1971) have called the "parallel
transmissionof kin-classstatus."
OveringKaplan(1973) has demonstrated how well suiteda Dravidianrelationship
terminologyis to the regulationof marriagein endogamous,cognaticgroups(cf. also
Yalman 1962). Having surveyedthe literatureon 48 lowlandSouth American
cultures,I (Hornborg1988)havefoundkin-affinedichotomiesof the Dravidiankind
generallyto be associatedwith cognaticgroups. Carib-speakers are prototypicalin
this respect(Rivi~re1977; Schwerin1982). The co-existenceof actualDravidian
classificationand unilinealsibs or moietiesis rare. Claimshave been made for
several Tukano-speaking groupsof the northwestAmazon(Hugh-Jones1979:76;
Arhem 1981:36-37;Jackson1984:160),butbothHugh-Jones(1979:79)and Arhem
(1981:37) interpretTukanoankin-affinepolarities in terms of agnates versus
nonagnatesratherthan accordingto Dumont'soriginalDravidianmodel. FZ is
depictedas kinratherthanaffine. Significantly,in severalcasesTukanoans also tend
to recognizedistinctaffinalterms, which violatesthe very principleaccordingto
whichDravidiansystemsaredefined. Thus,for instance,the BarasanaandMakuna
have a termfor WM (mafiiko)separatefromthe termfor FZ andMBW(mekaho).
The G6 of easternBrazil, with their completelydistinctaffinalterminologies,are
furthestremovedfromthe Dravidianmodelin this respect. In fact, the co-existence
of unilinealcategories(sibs or moieties)andunmistakably Dravidianterminologies
seems more or less confinedto Panoans. Actually,the relationship terminologyof

This content downloaded from 62.122.79.21 on Sun, 22 Jun 2014 13:10:33 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 PANOANMARRIAGESECTIONS 103

Panoans such as the Cashinahua,Sharanahua,and Mayorunais perhaps more

adequatelydescribedas Kariera(cf. Rivi~re1973:22),butKariera-type systemshave
been recognizedby severalspecialistsmerelyas variantsof the Dravidianpattern
(Yalman1962:548;Dumont1966;BuchlerandSelby 1968:148;Scheffler1971:243,
1977; Trautmann1981:237,436-437).The fundamental pointthatunitesDravidian
andKarierais the consistentmergingof affinesandcross-collaterals.
To sumup the variationwhichconcernsus here, we have (1) cognaticCaribswith
perfect, Dravidianterminologies,(2) unilineallyinclinedTukanoansand G6 with
increasinglyattenuatedtwo-linefeatures,andfinally(3) the doublyuniquePanoans
withtheircombination of Dravidianterminologies andpatrimoieties, andtheirsystems
of alternatinggenerationmarriageclasses.
It is intriguingthatthe differentvariantsof two-lineterminologiesamongCaribs,
Panoans,and Tukanoansall seem to be gearedto a commonpatternof short-cycle
alliancereciprocitywhich anthropologists variouslylabel symmetricalliance,direct
exchange, restrictedexchange, brother-sisterexchange, or bilateralcross-cousin
marriage. Howeverwe chooseto describeit, I thinkfew woulddeny the presence
in lowland South Americaof such a pervasiveregularityin social reproduction.
Variousforms of classificationreflectand reproducethis "elementary structure"as
a specific curvein the flows of socialprestations.If this regularityis acceptedas a
starting-point, we shouldaskwhy it is handledso differentlyby Caribs,Panoans,and
Tukanoans. believe that two factors are particularlyimportant. One is the
I
predominant formof postmarital residence;whetheruxorilocalor virilocal. Theother
is the specific, culturalconceptionof affinity;whetheregocentricor sociocentric. In
a Dravidianterminology,affinesaredefinedegocentrically, whereasunilinealdescent
categories such as sibs or moietiesmaintain sociocentric boundaries betweenkin and
affines.
It wouldbe beyondthe scopeof this essayto speculateas to why the G6 andmany
Caribsand Panoanshave yielded, in varyingmeasure,to uxorilocalbride-service,
whereasTukanoansresortto virilocalexchangemarriagesor bride-capture.It is
possible,however,thatthe differencebetweenmoreor less uxorilocalGuianaCaribs
and virilocalTukanoansreflectsa differencein the demographicor socio-political
feasibilityof maintaining supra-localexchangenetworks.For a manto settlewithhis
affines will be a less attractiveoptionthe greaterthe geographicaldistance, and
extensiveuxorilocalityseemsfeasibleonlywithina restrictedsocialrange(cf. Arhem
1981:156-163).Uxorilocalityin combination withclose, localendogamyagreeswith
the transient,egocentrickin-affinedistinctionof most Caribgroups. Whereasthe
virilocalTukano-speakers canclassifytheirrelativesin anexclusive,unilinealfashion,
kin-affinepolarities in Guiana have to be reconciledand finally denied (Overing
Kaplan1973; Schwerin1982;Shapiro1984:6;Riviere1984).
Theexogamous,patrilinealdescentideologyof theTukanoans is logicallyconsistent
with viewing marriageexchangeas externalto the virilocalgroup. Virilocality,in
otherwords, seems conduciveto a sociocentricconceptionof the kin-affinepolarity.
Butthe sociocentricpatrisibmodel,thoughfunctionallycongruentwithan egocentric,
Dravidianterminology(thatis, in termsof the symmetricalliancestructureto which
both models correspond;cf. Hornborg1987), is builton differentprinciples. FZ,

This content downloaded from 62.122.79.21 on Sun, 22 Jun 2014 13:10:33 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
104 ETHNOLOGY

althoughstill a potentialmother-in-law, can no longerbe classifiedprimarilyas an

affine. The Tukanoanapplication of distinctaffinalterms,suchas for WM, maythus
serve to alleviate contradictionsgeneratedby the emergenceof a sociocentric,
patrilinealconceptionof affinity.
The same thing may apply to the G6, who follow the Tukanoansin viewing
marriageexchange as "external"to Ego's own, sociocentricgroup, yet retain
uxorilocality. Theirdualorganizations representthe reconciliation
of exogamyand
uxorilocality,drawingconceptuallyand spatiallydistinctsets of affinestogetherin
large, cohesive villages (Maybury-Lewis1979). Their distinctaffinalterms and
extendedexogamyare consistentwiththe sociocentric,unilinealmoietymodel. The
G6 generallydisapproveof actualfirst cross-cousinmarriage,andthe two kindsof
cross-cousinsare terminologicallydistinguishedfrom each other in Crow-Omaha
fashion on the basis of householdaffiliationor successionto ceremonialroles.
Althoughfurthestremovedfromthe Dravidianmodel,systemsof socialclassification
amongthe G6 can be understoodas sociocentrictransformations of its kin-affine
in
dualismandalso, fact, of its inherentprinciplesof paralleltransmission(Scheffler
andLounsbury1971:179-190;Hornborg1988:111,235-236,245).
Tukanoans and G6 illustratehow the Dravidian equation of affines and
cross-collateralswill tendto disappearwhereverthe kin-affinedichotomyis given a
sociocentric(i.e., unilineal)form. The complementary distributionof Dravidian
terminologiesandunilinealkin groupsin lowlandSouthAmericaindicatesthatthe
strugglefor cognitiveconsistencyis a factorto be reckonedwith in accountingfor
culturalvariation.Turningfinallyto the Panoans,however,it becomesequallyclear
thatthe same contradiction can be avoidedor alleviatedin variousways.
Like the G6, Panoangroups such as the Cashinahuaand Sharanahuacombine
uxorilocalresidenceanddualorganization.Butin contrastto the G6, Panoanvillages
are small and actualcross-cousinmarriageis viewedas an ideal (Kensinger1984b;
Siskind1973;FieldsandMerrifield1980). Relationship terminologiesdifferfromthe
classicalDravidianmodel only in two respects. As amongthe Tukanoans,FZ is
groupedwith F ratherthan with MB. Second, differentkinds of grandkinare
distinguishedfrom each other and equatedwith kin or affines at Ego's own
generation. This Kariera-type terminologyis in perfectagreementwiththeirsystem
of sociocentric,alternatinggenerationmarriageclasses. Butcontraryto Tukanoand
G6, Panoansmaintainthe crucialDravidianfeaturewherebycross-collateralsare
consistentlyequatedwith affines. Putdifferently,thereare no specialaffinalterms.
So what aboutthe contradictory statusof FZ, who is a memberof Ego's patrilineal
but
moiety terminologically defined as a mother-in-law?Whichsupracategory does
she belongto: kinor affines? The answerseemsto be neither. I argueherethatthis
maybe the very pointof four-sectionsystems;the categories"kin"and "affines"are
simplyirrelevantat the generational levelsadjacentto Ego's. For eachEgo, the only
categoriesof people who fit the conceptof affines are those delineatedby the
marriageclass into whichhe or she shouldmarry. The kin-affinepolarityis, so to
speak,neutralizedin alternategenerations.I suggestthatthis representsa cognitive
accommodation to the contradiction posed by an articulationof unilinealcategories
and close endogamy. As such, it can be viewed as a structuralalternativeto the

This content downloaded from 62.122.79.21 on Sun, 22 Jun 2014 13:10:33 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 PANOAN MARRIAGESECTIONS 105

introduction of separateaffinalterms,whichhasoccurredamongthe G6 andto some

extentthe Tukanoans.
Unilinealityis an illusion;the closermarriagesare, the moreobviousthis will be.
Amongthe virilocalTukanoans,the physicalremovalof the FZ fromthe local group
mayhelpto alleviatethe problem,as does the applicationof a specificterm(maiiiko)
for WM. Amongthe uxorilocalG6, the largesize of local groupspermitsextended
genealogicalexogamywithoutviolatingthe idealof villageendogamy.The threatof
confusingthe boundarybetweenconsanguinityand affinityis no longer a major
problem. The actualFZD is rarelymarried,anddistinctaffinaltermsareconsistently
applied. But the Panoansare forced to resort to anothersolution. Whether
determinedby differencesin ecology (cf. Gross 1979), history, demography,or
sociopoliticalfactors,uxorilocalityamongcontemporary Panoansdoes not produce
large, cohesive settlementsas among the G6. Possibly the very fact that they
recognizesociocentricmoietiesmay indicatethatit once did. At present,however,
the combinationof uxorilocalityandsmalllocalgroupsencouragesclose endogamy,
and a terminologicaldistinctionbetweenmarriageable relativesandactualaffinesis
unfeasible. So the Dravidianterminologypersists,but in orderto harmonizewith
dualorganizationit assumesthe formof theKariera,four-sectionvariant.Thisseems
to be the only courseopen to trulyDravidiansystems(i.e., those with no separate
affinalterms)if they areto be madecompatiblewithsociocentric,unilinealdivisions
(cf. Shapiro1970).
The envisagedcontradiction betweenunilinealcategoriesandclose endogamymay
also be avoidedby a principleof paralleltransmission,the persistenceof whichhas
been impliedfor some Panoangroups(Siskind1973:199;Kensinger1985:20,24).
Paralleltransmission,whichwe havearguedis implicitin Dravidiansystems,would
contributeto neutralizingthe contradictorystatus of FZ by letting kin-affine
distinctionsfocus primarilyon same-sexrelations. Kensinger(1985:20,24,note2)
indicatesthatthe Cashinahua systemof classificationcouldbe describedas if gender
is divided by moiety membership,rather than vice versa (i.e., patrimoieties
subdividedby gender). The resultis two male andtwo female moieties, as if the
egocentric,parallel"lines"of a Dravidianterminologyhad assumeda sociocentric
form. Womenmaynotbelongto the patrimoieties at all (cf. Shapiro1984:12,29,note
19). If the dual division inubake/duabake is an exclusivelymaleconcern,the two sets
of alternating generations(awabakebu-dunubakebu andkanabakebu-yawabakebu) may
reflectcategoriesof corresponding relevanceto femaleidentity,producinga parallel
systemof femalematrilinescriss-crossing themalepatrilines.Thetransferof medical
in
knowledge, fact, is an explicitinstance of such paralleltransmission(Kensinger
1974:285). Parallelsystems "sex affiliation"(cf. Williams1932), ratherthan
of
bilinealor doubleunilinealdescent,mayrepresentthe reconciliation of Dravidiankin
termsand dual organizationamongPano-speakers.Possiblythis was also the case
among aboriginalAustralians(cf. Dumont1966). If so, the "moieties"of these
groupsare simplynot unilinealdescentgroups.
Of course,thesesweepinggeneralizations aboutentirelinguisticfamiliesserveonly
to distill some structuralpossibilitieswith which they tend to be associated. The
cognitive mechanismsresponsiblefor the variationbetween linguistic families

This content downloaded from 62.122.79.21 on Sun, 22 Jun 2014 13:10:33 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
106 ETHNOLOGY

undoubtedly also work within them. We have seen this illustratedfor the Yanoama
linguistic family by Ramos and Albert (1977), but it is equally evident among the four
families dealt with here. For instance, the Carib-speakingTxicao (Menget 1977),
with their Crow-type kin equations, seem closer to the G6 than to neighboringCaribs
such as the Kalapalo. The G6-affiliatedNambikwara,on the other hand, appearto
have applied a fairly straightforward,Dravidianterminology. Among Tukanoans,the
Makuna apparentlyallow a higher frequency of locally endogamous marriages and
uxorilocal bride-servicethan, for instance,the Cubeo (Arhem 1981:287-293). Among
Panoans, finally, we might mention the virilocal Amahuaca (Dole 1979), whose
relationshipterminology strongly suggests a previous, four-sectionsystem, but where
occasional, oblique marriages (to a ZD or FZ) indicate that it is no longer relevant
to their conception of society.
The perennial question remains of why the unilineal illusion is at all introduced;
e.g., whether it reflects a previous period of local exogamy and unilocal residence,
or simply a compulsion to represent the inherent dualism of symmetric marriage
exchange in terms of consistent social boundaries. Whichever is the case, the
appearance of sociocentric divisions such as sibs, moieties, or sections appears to
represent what Scheffler (1977:880) calls a "reification or objectification" of
egocentric terminologicalcategories. They are partof the same strugglefor order and
meaning, which among different peoples, according to different circumstances, has
produced very different interpretationsof society.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Arhem, K. 1981. Makuna Social Organization:A Study in Descent, Alliance, and the
Formation of CorporateGroups in the North-WesternAmazon. Uppsala Studies in
CulturalAnthropology4. Stockholm.
Buchler, I. R., and H. A. Selby. 1968. Kinship and Social Organization:An Introduction
to TheoryandMethod. New York.
Dole, G. E. 1979. Patternand Variationin AmahuacaKin Terminology. Kensinger
1979:13-36.
Dumont, L. 1953. The Dravidian Kinship Terminology as an Expression of Marriage.
Man 53:34-39.
1966. Descent or Intermarriage?A RelationalView of AustralianSection Systems.
SouthwesternJournalof Anthropology22:231-250.
Fields, H. L., and W. R. Merrifield. 1980. Mayoruna (Panoan) Kinship. Ethnology
19:1-28.
Gross, D. R. 1979. A New Approach to Central Brazilian Social Organization. Brazil:
Anthropological Perspectives. Essays in Honor of Charles Wagley, eds. M. L.
Margolis and W. E. Carter, pp. 321-342. New York.
Hornborg, A. 1987. Lineality in Two-Line Relationship Terminologies. American
Anthropologist 89(2):454-456.
1988. Dualism and Hierarchyin LowlandSouth America:Trajectoriesof Indigenous
Social Organization. Uppsala Studies in CulturalAnthropology9. Stockholm.
Hugh-Jones, C. 1979. From the Milk River: Spatial and Temporal Processes in
Northwest Amazonia. Cambridge.
Jackson, J. E. 1984. Vaupes MarriagePractices. Kensinger 1984a:156-179.

This content downloaded from 62.122.79.21 on Sun, 22 Jun 2014 13:10:33 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 PANOAN MARRIAGE SECTIONS 107

Keesing, R. M. 1975. Kin Groups and Social Structure. New York.

Kensinger, K.M. 1974. Cashinahua Medicine and Medicine Men. Native South
Americans: Ethnology of the Least Known Continent, ed. P.J. Lyon, pp. 283-288.
Boston.
(ed.). 1979. Social Correlates of Kin Terminology. Working Papers on South
American Indians 1. Bennington.
(ed.). 1984a. Marriage Practices in Lowland South America. Illinois Studies in
Anthropology No. 14. Urbana.
1984b. An Emic Model of Cashinahua Marriage. Kensinger 1984a:221-251.
1985. CashinahuaSiblingship. The Sibling Relationshipin Lowland South America,
Working Papers on South American Indians 7, ed. K. M. Kensinger, pp. 20-24.
Bennington.
Maybury-Lewis, D. H. P. (ed.). 1979. Dialectical Societies: The Ge and Bororo of
Central Brazil. Cambridge, Mass.
Menget, P. 1977. Adresse et ref6rence dans la classification sociale Txicaio. Actes du
XLIIe Congres Internationaldes AmericanistesII, eds. B. Albert et al., pp. 323-339.
Paris.
Murdock, G. P. 1949. Social Structure. New York.
Needham, R. 1971. Rethinking Kinship and Marriage. A. S. A. Monographs 11.
London.
Overing Kaplan, J. 1973. Endogamy and the MarriageAlliance: A Note on Continuity in
Kindred-BasedGroups. Man 8:555-570.
Ramos, A. R., and B. Albert. 1977. Yanoama Descent and Affinity: The Sanuma/
Yanomam Contrast. Actes du XLIIe Congres Internationaldes Americanistes II,
eds., B. Albert et al., pp. 71-90. Paris.
Ridington, R. 1969. Kin Categories Versus Kin Groups: A Two-Section System without
Sections. Ethnology 8:460-467.
Riviere, P. G. 1973. The Lowland South America Culture Area: Towards a Structural
Definition. Paper presented at the 72nd Annual Meeting of the American
AnthropologicalAssociation. New Orleans.
1977. Some Problems in the ComparativeStudy of CaribSocieties. Carib-Speaking
Indians: Culture, Society and Language, AnthropologicalPapers of the University of
Arizona 28, ed. E. B. Basso, pp. 39-42. Tucson.
1984. Individualand Society in Guiana:A ComparativeStudy of AmerindianSocial
Organization. Cambridge.
Scheffler, H. W. 1971. Dravidian-Iroquois:The Melanesian Evidence. Anthropology in
Oceania: Essays in Honor of H. I. Hogbin, eds. C. Jayawardenaand L. Hiatt, pp.
231-254. Sydney.
1977. Kinship and Alliance in South India and Australia. American Anthropologist
79:869-882.
Scheffler, H. W., and F. G. Lounsbury. 1971. A Study in StructuralSemantics: The
Sirion6 Kinship System. Englewood Cliffs.
Schwerin, K. H. 1982. The Kin IntegrationSystem among Caribs. Paper presented at the
44th InternationalCongress of Americanists. Manchester.
Shapiro, J. R. 1984. Marriage Rules, MarriageExchange, and the Definition of Marriage
in Lowland South American Societies. Kensinger 1984a:1-30.
Shapiro, W. 1970. The Ethnographyof Two-Section Systems. Ethnology 9:380-388.
Siskind, J. 1973. To Hunt in the Morning. New York.
Trautmann,T. R. 1981. DravidianKinship. Cambridge.

This content downloaded from 62.122.79.21 on Sun, 22 Jun 2014 13:10:33 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
108 ETHNOLOGY

Williams, F. E. 1932. Sex Affiliation and Its Implications. Journal of the Royal
AnthropologicalInstitute62:51-81.
Yalman, N. 1962. The Structure of the Sinhalese Kindred: A Re-examination of the
Dravidian Terminology. American Anthropologist64:548-575.

This content downloaded from 62.122.79.21 on Sun, 22 Jun 2014 13:10:33 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions