2024-03-29T01:38:53Zhttps://escholarship.org/oaioai:escholarship.org:ark:/13030/qt7p3431502021-05-06T15:30:35Zqt7p343150SOCIALITY IN E. O. WILSON’S GENESIS: EXPANDING THE PAST, IMAGINING THE FUTUREDenham, Woodrow W2019-10-01In this article, I critique Edward O. Wilson’s (2019) Genesis: The Deep Origin of Societies from a perspective provided by David Christian’s (2016) Big History. Genesis is a slender, narrowly focused recapitulation and summation of Wilson’s lifelong research on altruism, eusociality, the biological bases of kinship, and related aspects of sociality among insects and humans. Wilson considers it to be among the most important of his 35+ published books, one of which created the controversial discipline of sociobiology and two of which won Pulitzer Prizes. Big History is Christian’s recent attempt to graphically depict the history of the universe in a massive, sprawling, well-documented volume that opens with the Big Bang and terminates now, about 13.8 billion years later.I take four disparate approaches to enhance the strengths of Wilson’s and Christian’s important books. Part 1. Expanding the past examines 1. contextual data for numerous transitions in sociality in the distant past, and 2. ethnographic data pertaining to kinship and warfare in Australian Aboriginal hunter-gatherer societies in the recent past. Part 2. Imagining the future speculates about 1. predictive applications of sociality research as we approach another mass extinction in the near future, and 2. social research concerning globular star clusters in the remote future. Small scale case studies feature, among other things, two species of colonial microorganisms, the Alyawarra speaking people of Central Australia, and social insects as a background for all else. Although Wilson’s extensive quantitative research deals mainly with kinship and related topics among ants, bees, wasps and termites, it is not limited by time, space or species.E. O. WilsonCultural transitionslong term evolutionenhancing ethnographic researchapplication/pdfpubliceScholarship, University of Californiahttps://escholarship.org/uc/item/7p343150articleMathematical Anthropology and Cultural Theory, vol 14, iss 11 - 37oai:escholarship.org:ark:/13030/qt6tt297m02021-05-04T22:02:10Zqt6tt297m0 ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE / MACHINE LEARNING RESEARCH USING THE AUSTRALIAN ABORIGINAL ALYAWARRA KINSHIP DATASET: PARTIAL BIBLIOGRAPHY 2004-2020 Denham, Woodrow W2020-12-02This paper describes methods used at the interface between anthropology and machine learning research. Charles Kemp, a graduate student at MIT in 2004, discovered my numerically coded Alyawarra kinship term applications data (Denham 1973; Denham, McDaniel and Atkins 1979; Denham and White 2005) and received my permission to use the data in his machine learning research. Since then, his co-authored papers (Kemp et al. 2004, 2006, 2010), and other works that cite his papers and mine, have played significant roles in the development of unsupervised pattern detection and machine learning technology as subsets of Artificial Intelligence research. Part 1 of the paper outlines how I produced the Alyawarra (Alyawara) kinship term applications dataset and introduces the structure and content of the dataset and supporting files. Part 2 briefly describes some simple ways to analyze the dataset either manually or with machine learning technology. Minimally these examples demonstrate some ways in which the ethnographic dataset is useful to the machine learning community now. More speculatively, the machine learning technology introduced here may enhance ethnographic research in the future. Part 3 provides links to a sample of 24 papers by Kemp et al. and other AI colleagues, all of which utilize the Alyawarra Kinship dataset. Part 4 contains links to some of my Alyawarra kinship data and documentation files that are available online. Part 5 briefly acknowledges support that I have received for this project over the last half-century. machine learningpattern detectionethnographic data setsAlyawarra Kinshipenhancing ethnographic researchapplication/pdfpubliceScholarship, University of Californiahttps://escholarship.org/uc/item/6tt297m0articleMathematical Anthropology and Cultural Theory, vol 15, iss 11 - 16oai:escholarship.org:ark:/13030/qt11w3x4qw2019-05-07T07:13:00Zqt11w3x4qwAboriginal Men Coming of Age in Central AustraliaDenham, Woodrow W2018-11-27This is a quantitative analysis of the replication of Dreamtime traditions among the Alyawarra of Central Australia in 1971-72. A narrative summary presents observational data recorded during the enactment of a 108-hours long tone poem that embodied oral traditions, songs, dances and visual arts as aides-mémoire that facilitated the synthesis and persistence of a reliable society comprised of unreliable people. The tone poem, presented by 69 men and women, marked the beginning of one young man’s lifelong education in the all-encompassing Aboriginal Dreamtime. A tabular summary follows the narrative summary and describes demographic, genealogical, kinship and other quantified relations that were embedded in the narrative and that young men were required to learn before they could marry and sire children. The paper ends with a discussion of the two summaries that together shaped the education of young Aboriginal men. Instantaneous scan sampling and unsupervised pattern detection formed a reductionist research strategy for finding points of entry into an otherwise impenetrably complex alien civilization in which male circumcision was a major feature. The paper does not pretend to be an exercise in explanation, but it has major implications for identifying what needs to be explained. When observations and descriptions are problematic, formulating testable theories of human behavior is doomed from the outset. AustraliaAboriginalalloparentingcommunal mentoringcoming of agekinshipmoietiesDreamtimeinstantaneous scan samplingunsupervised pattern detectiondata miningfault tolerant computingreplicationconsilience.application/pdfpubliceScholarship, University of Californiahttps://escholarship.org/uc/item/11w3x4qwarticleMathematical Anthropology and Culture Theory, vol 13, iss 11 - 142oai:escholarship.org:ark:/13030/qt32q9153k2018-05-18T17:19:28Zqt32q9153kHAMBERGER’sCOMMENT ON D. READ “GENERATIVE CROW-OMAHA TERMINOLOGIES”Hamberger, Klaus2018-02-01This is the latest of a series of papers on the generative deep structures of kinship terminologies by Dwight Read, which considerably widens the spectrum of methods and concepts employed hitherto. I will therefore discuss it in the context of Read’s more general project to develop a theory and typology of kinship terminologies based on the process of their generation, by concentrating on three main arguments: (1) the newly introduced difference between symmetric and asymmetric deep structures; (2) the use of cross-sex kin terms as gender-switch operators; and (3) the interpretation of generational skewing as an effect of generative asymmetry.Omaha Terminologykinship terminologiesformal representationapplication/pdfpubliceScholarship, University of Californiahttps://escholarship.org/uc/item/32q9153karticleMathematical Anthropology and Culture Theory, vol 12, iss 41 - 9oai:escholarship.org:ark:/13030/qt7c16s5qd2018-04-18T07:00:43Zqt7c16s5qdTHE GENERATIVE LOGIC OF CROW-OMAHA TERMINOLOGIES: THE THONGA-RONGA KINSHIP TERMINOLOGY AS A CASE STUDYRead, Dwight W2018-01-01The goal of the paper is to show how the generative logic approach to kinship terminology structures sheds light on the basis for the skewing that characterizes the Crow-Omaha terminologies. The generative logic of the Omaha terminology of the Thonga-Ronga of southern Africa is examined in detail and the skewing in this terminology is found to occur as a consequence of having a set of male generating terms for the male kin terms, but only female self for the female kin terms. This contrasts sharply with the Omaha terminology of the Fox Indians for which the skewing is the result of a deleting the cross-cousin kin terms from an Iroquois terminology. The results obtained here underscore the need to consider the skewing associated with the Crow-Omaha terminologies from the perspective of the generative logic of kinship terminologies.Omaha Terminologykinship terminologiesformal representationapplication/pdfpubliceScholarship, University of Californiahttps://escholarship.org/uc/item/7c16s5qdarticleMathematical Anthropology and Culture Theory, vol 12, iss 11 - 38oai:escholarship.org:ark:/13030/qt9x78t1wm2018-04-18T06:53:39Zqt9x78t1wmCOMMENT ON VAZ’ RELATIVES, MOLECULES AND PARTICLES BARBOSA DE ALMEIDA, Mauro W2014-06-13KinshipDravidianDNASUZYapplication/pdfpubliceScholarship, University of Californiahttps://escholarship.org/uc/item/9x78t1wmarticleMathematical Anthropology and Culture Theory, vol 7, iss 31 - 23oai:escholarship.org:ark:/13030/qt7gx8n6v92018-04-18T06:50:21Zqt7gx8n6v9READ’S REPLY TO COMMENTS ONTHE GENERATIVE LOGIC OF CROW-OMAHA TERMINOLOGIES: THE THONGA-RONGA KINSHIP TERMINOLOGY AS A CASE STUDYRead, Dwight W2018-02-01The seven commentators, Thomas Trautmann, Peter Whiteley, Patrick McConvell, Patrick Heady, Franklin Tjon Sie Fat, Klaus Hamberger, and Mauro Barbosa de Almeida, have provided wide-ranging and important observations that go beyond the specifics of my text and bring to the discussion important issues that relate to our understanding of the Crow-Omaha terminologies. Their comments alone provide a major contribution to the discourse on the Crow-Omaha terminologies. Accordingly, my response to their comments focuses on ways that the structural analysis I presented of the Thongan kinship terminology relates to this broader discussion.I have divided my reply into seven parts: (1) Relationship of Abstract Algebras to Kinship Terminologies, (2) Other Methodologies: Thick Description, Equivalence Rules, Description and Extension, (3) Ethnographic Issues Relating to The Algebraic Representation, (4) Comments by Patrick McConvell, Patrick Heady, and Franklin Tjon Sie Fat, (5) The Formalism Issues Raised by Klaus Hamberger, (6) The Formalism Issues Raised by Mauro Barbosa de Almeida, and (7) Conclusion -- Why Does Ñwana(‘Son’) oMalume(‘Mother’s Brother’) = Malume?Omaha Terminologykinship terminologiesformal representationapplication/pdfpubliceScholarship, University of Californiahttps://escholarship.org/uc/item/7gx8n6v9articleMathematical Anthropology and Culture Theory, vol 12, iss 81 - 62oai:escholarship.org:ark:/13030/qt1h1423072018-04-18T06:39:30Zqt1h142307HEADY’S COMMENT ON D. READ “GENERATIVE CROW-OMAHA TERMINOLOGIES”Heady, Patrickj2018-02-01Read’s work on the generative logic of kinship terminologies constitutes one of the most distinctive and stimulating series of publications in the contemporary anthropology of kinship. His intention to produce a universally valid explanatory (i.e. causal) theory of kinship terminology is highly ambitious – but also appropriate and intellectually refreshing. An important feature of his theoretical framework is that it allows for an interaction between universal cognitive processes and local cultural ideas. Another distinctive feature is that Read usually models whole terminologies – and specific features, such as crossness and generational skewing, are understood in the light of the terminological system as a whole. Read has been continually testing and refining his conceptual apparatus, and in this paper he brings it to bear for the first time on Crow-Omaha systems – offering us an exploratory case study that is intended both to show the insight that the generative logic approach can bring, and to investigate the specific logical features that may give rise to the phenomenon of skewing. In this comment I will look at Read’s approach in quite a general way, embedding my specific comments on his analysis of Thonga kinship within this more general review.Omaha Terminologykinship terminologiesformal representationapplication/pdfpubliceScholarship, University of Californiahttps://escholarship.org/uc/item/1h142307articleMathematical Anthropology and Culture Theory, vol 12, iss 21 - 8oai:escholarship.org:ark:/13030/qt4w18c8zt2018-04-18T06:32:15Zqt4w18c8ztTJON SIE FAT’sCOMMENT ON D. READ “GENERATIVE CROW-OMAHA TERMINOLOGIES”Tjon Sie Fat, Franklin2018-02-01It is always a pleasure to read any of the ongoing elaborations of Dwight Read’s framework for the formal analysis of kinship terminologies. This exploratory case study of the Thonga-Ronga terminological system raises a number of important issues concerning the specificities of skewing as well as the encompassing methodology of Read’s generative logic program for kinship analysis. I first comment on Read’s framework for the analysis of a kinship terminology’s generative logic. I then argue (as other respondents have) for embedding the analysis of Thonga-Ronga skewing within the context of a more locally constrained field of comparison. I conclude with specific suggestions for comparing kinship models and their underlying generative logics as variants and transitions situated within an abstract morphospace. Omaha Terminologykinship terminologiesformal representationapplication/pdfpubliceScholarship, University of Californiahttps://escholarship.org/uc/item/4w18c8ztarticleMathematical Anthropology and Culture Theory, vol 12, iss 31 - 9oai:escholarship.org:ark:/13030/qt328293gn2018-04-18T06:23:57Zqt328293gnTRAUTMANN AND WHITELEY’sCOMMENT ON D. READ “GENERATIVE CROW-OMAHA TERMINOLOGIES”Trautmann, Thomas RWhiteley, Peter M2018-02-01Read’s formal analysis of kinship terminologies is well known and widely respected, as is his leadership in promoting the formal analysis of kinship through the formation of panels and conferences, and his role in this journal. As in all his work the paper is strongly reasoned and draws upon a knowledge of the literature that is long and deep. All of these are reasons we welcome the piece before us. On the other hand, the spirit of this work is somewhat different from that of our book, engendering in us some reservations. Taking the strengths for granted, we will confine our comment to a couple of things in Read’s article with which we take issue.Omaha Terminologykinship terminologiesformal representationapplication/pdfpubliceScholarship, University of Californiahttps://escholarship.org/uc/item/328293gnarticleMathematical Anthropology and Culture Theory, vol 12, iss 61 - 12oai:escholarship.org:ark:/13030/qt66h059r22018-04-18T06:16:49Zqt66h059r2PATRICK MCCONVELL’sCOMMENT ON D. READ “GENERATIVE CROW-OMAHA TERMINOLOGIES”McConvell, Patrick2018-02-01This is a valuable contribution to the ongoing debate about Crow-Omaha and the overall approach to analysis of kinship systems. That Omaha patterns can arise for different reasons in different societies is certainly a possibility, and it is good that Read presents here a comparison which claims to show that. I do agree with Read that a formal analysis is a necessary first step before continuing with an explanation of the causes of the specific form of kinship structure in a specific group. The key dichotomy proposed is that between Crow-Omaha as a direct consequence of an inherent generative logic and as resulting from a transformation of the terminology.The idea that there is a major difference between the causes of the two types is attractive but this conceptualisation of it is problematic. It implies that the Thonga-Ronga system is not due to a transformation, so perhaps has remained the same from a very ancient time. But no evidence bearing on this is offered, nor is it likely that no transformations have been at work.Omaha Terminologykinship terminologiesformal representationapplication/pdfpubliceScholarship, University of Californiahttps://escholarship.org/uc/item/66h059r2articleMathematical Anthropology and Culture Theory, vol 12, iss 51 - 4oai:escholarship.org:ark:/13030/qt2777f1xg2018-04-18T06:07:32Zqt2777f1xgALMEIDA’sCOMMENT ON D. READ “GENERATIVE CROW-OMAHA TERMINOLOGIES”Barbosa de Almeida, Mauro2018-02-01Read´s research program for describing the “generative logic” of distinct kinship terminologies in a homogeneous framework has proved its fruitfulness in different ethnographic domains, ranging from North American kinship to Dravidian terminologies, and more. Applied now to the so-called Omaha systems, the framework suggests a new taxonomy of kinship terminologies, in which Thonga kinship terminology – until now a type specimen for the Omaha terminology, based on Junod´s ethnography – is separated from Fox kinship terminology, another type specimen of the Omaha, as described by Dorsey, and Morgan before him. Read´s thesis, therefore, subverts Lounsbury´s subdivision of “Omaha” taxon in four varieties, among which “Type I” was instanced by the Fox terminology, while Type III had Thonga data as a standard representative. It is not my intention to refute Read´s representation of the logic underlying Thong kinship terminology, expressed in diagrammatic form, but, rather, to suggest that there is more than one way to represent it.Omaha TerminologiesKinship TheoryFormal Kinship Systemsapplication/pdfpubliceScholarship, University of Californiahttps://escholarship.org/uc/item/2777f1xgarticleMathematical Anthropology and Culture Theory, vol 12, iss 71 - 23oai:escholarship.org:ark:/13030/qt8qp9g5vh2017-10-01T02:20:25Zqt8qp9g5vhReflections on the Algebraic Representation of Kinship StructureJ, Cargal M2017-09-01The reflections here are on work done in 1976 and abandoned in 1980. Nonetheless, after forty years the author may have forgotten the ethnography, but he could not help but reflect on the algebraic aspects, despite himself. mathematical anthropologygroup theoryassociativityKariera kinship systemapplication/pdfpubliceScholarship, University of Californiahttps://escholarship.org/uc/item/8qp9g5vharticleMathematical Anthropology and Culture Theory, vol 11, iss 1oai:escholarship.org:ark:/13030/qt67g000jk2016-11-19T08:02:01Zqt67g000jkResidential Group Composition Among the AlyawarraDenham, woodrowW W2014-05-01This is the third of three papers I have written recently that challenge and seek to supplant the presumption of closure, rigidity and simplicity in anthropological analyses of Australian Aboriginal social organization. The first dealt with generational closure in canonical Kariera and Aranda kinship models; the second dealt with societal closure, endogamy and the small-world problem; this one examines closure, rigidity and simplicity in residential group compositions. I argue that these three problematic applications of the concept of closure converted European folk beliefs into a scientific theory based more on assumptions and conjectures than on observations of Aboriginal behavior. This paper and the two that preceded it constitute a systematic argument that emphasizes the importance of openness, flexibility and complexity in analyzing Australian Aboriginal social organization. The current paper is a commentary on theoretical issues associated with diversity in residential group compositions within and among Australian Aboriginal societies. I approach the matter by focusing primarily on variability in ethnographic patterns and historical processes for which I collected computer-analyzable behavioral and cognitive data with the Alyawarra speaking people of Central Australia in 1971-72. Throughout the paper, I emphasize complexity, openness, flexibility and freedom among the Alyawarra, while rejecting simplicity, closure, rigidity and Strehlow’s (1947) “all-oppressive night-shadow of tradition”. Among the Alyawarra, “residential group” means 2 or more people living together in any of three kinds of residences and three kinds of communities. “Group composition” refers to the diverse relationships among people with whom one lives. Relevant biological and behavioral factors include sex, age, marital status, asymmetrical male/female generation intervals with a mean wifeIt is a truism that we cannot account for societal complexity when our preconceived notions prevent us from perceiving it. My objective here is to demonstrate that a great deal of complexity in Australian Aboriginal social organization waits to be discovered if only we will look for it. Raising one’s consciousness is not developing a grand theory, but it may be a useful first step. application/pdfpubliceScholarship, University of Californiahttps://escholarship.org/uc/item/67g000jkarticleMathematical Anthropology and Culture Theory, vol 6, iss 1oai:escholarship.org:ark:/13030/qt3r25h05m2016-02-05T17:56:56Zqt3r25h05m RESPONSE TO MACT COMMENTS ON DENHAM’S “ALYAWARRA KINSHIP, INFANT CARRYING, AND ALLOPARENTING”Denham, Woodrow W2016-01-01I am delighted with the broad range of Comments submitted to MACT concerning my paper on kinship, infant carrying and alloparenting among the Alyawarra. I thank all of the authors for their contributions. Although some topics were addressed by only one author, several were addressed by most or all of them, so I have directed my responses to selected topics rather than to individual Comments. I have not attempted to respond to all of the issues addressed in the Comments, but have chosen a representative sample for special attention. application/pdfpubliceScholarship, University of Californiahttps://escholarship.org/uc/item/3r25h05marticleMathematical Anthropology and Culture Theory, vol 8, iss 6oai:escholarship.org:ark:/13030/qt1b83m65d2016-02-05T17:51:29Zqt1b83m65dCOMMENT ON: DENHAM, “ALYAWARRA KINSHIP, INFANT CARRYING, AND ALLOPARENTING”Ballonoff, Paul2015-12-01The thought-provoking review of Denham by Dr. Robert Banks points out some very important parts of cultural analysis, unfortunately seldom discussed. Some of the questions posed by Banks are in part answered by two citations in Denham’s original paper: those of Hirshleifer (1977) and Gammage (2011). While Denham discusses Gammage in a bit more depth (pages 82 and 83), he cites Hirshleifer for more narrow reasons. Hirshleifer, a micro-economist, was one of the original modern thinkers on how biological and cultural evolution can be treated as one subject. Had Hrdy not treated the subject, Denham could have proposed his study showing that Hirshleifer predicted much of what Denham found. application/pdfpubliceScholarship, University of Californiahttps://escholarship.org/uc/item/1b83m65darticleMathematical Anthropology and Culture Theory, vol 8, iss 5oai:escholarship.org:ark:/13030/qt1pb503dj2016-02-05T17:46:38Zqt1pb503dj COMMENTS on W. Denham’s “Alyawarra kinship, infant carrying, and alloparenting”
and the review of it by Herlosky et al.,
“Allomaternal care and the significance of naturalistic observations among contemporary foragers”Lehman, F K2015-12-01Regarding a possible theory about the distribution of alloparenting, which is what Denham’s ethnographic paper is at least implicitly dealing with and which is nicely addressed by the Herlosky et al review of Denham, especially the broad range of the relevant literature, something more needs to be addressed. Most of all Denham’s paper and the literature cited in the review seem concerned with what appears to be a sort of bio-evolutionary basis for alloparenting; a perspective that hardly considers the importance of larger scale socio-cultural factors at all directly, factors which do not lend themselves simply to bio-evolutionary analysis. What I want to do here is address the latter factors more directly without disputing the bio-evolutionary analysis.application/pdfpubliceScholarship, University of Californiahttps://escholarship.org/uc/item/1pb503djarticleMathematical Anthropology and Culture Theory, vol 8, iss 4oai:escholarship.org:ark:/13030/qt6wn818822016-02-05T17:41:23Zqt6wn81882 COMMENT ON: DENHAM, “ALYAWARRA KINSHIP, INFANT CARRYING, AND ALLOPARENTING”Banks, Robert2015-10-01Arising from an initial inquiry about the distribution of levels of inbreeding in Aboriginal Australian (Denham, 2012) societies and subsequent analysis of some small datasets with Dr Denham, I have come to read the paper “Alyawarra kinship, infant carrying, and alloparenting”. It contains interesting observations about patterns of interaction within- and between-social and kinship groups studied by Dr Denham, which have prompted for me some questions and speculations. I should stress that my perspective on the material covered in the paper is a combination of quantitative genetic analysis, coupled with a broader interest in evolutionary processes, in this case as they may have applied in both the genetic and social or cultural senses of evolution. I share these questions and speculations simply to extend the discussion which I am sure will be prompted by the paper. And I stress in advance my extremely limited knowledge of the fields of research covered by this journal.application/pdfpubliceScholarship, University of Californiahttps://escholarship.org/uc/item/6wn81882articleMathematical Anthropology and Culture Theory, vol 8, iss 3oai:escholarship.org:ark:/13030/qt3h24m1wt2016-02-05T17:32:01Zqt3h24m1wt ALLOMATERNAL CARE AND THE SIGNIFICANCE OF NATURALISTIC OBSERVATIONS AMONG CONTEMPORARY FORAGERS: A COMMENTARY ON DENHAM’S “ALYAWARRA KINSHIP, INFANT CARRYING, AND ALLOPARENTING”Helosky, Kristen NBroaden, Elizabeth MFranco, Carol YCrittenden, Alyssa N2015-10-01In this substantive work, Denham presents quantitative data on approximately 200 hours of observational research on infant and child carrying among the Alyawarra of Australia. His aim was to “demonstrate ways in which observational data collected with a hunter-gatherer society almost half a century ago can contribute to an understanding of our species”. He does just this. While his data, at first sight, may appear to be out of date (being collected from 1971-1972), that interpretation would be misguided. These are valuable and timely data, given the current climate of research on cooperative care matrices and their significance for understanding the evolution of human behavior and reproduction. Denham’s data represents thoughtful and detailed ethnographic and behavioral data collection.application/pdfpubliceScholarship, University of Californiahttps://escholarship.org/uc/item/3h24m1wtarticleMathematical Anthropology and Culture Theory, vol 8, iss 2oai:escholarship.org:ark:/13030/qt640994nk2016-02-05T16:43:42Zqt640994nk ALYAWARRA KINSHIP, INFANT CARRYING, AND ALLOPARENTINGDenham, Woodrow W2015-10-01In recent decades, fieldwork with 20th century hunter-gatherers has led to a “paradigm shift” away from emphasis on child care by the mother alone, toward alloparental care in which parents and their children benefit from help provided by children’s older siblings, mother’s siblings, mother’s mother and more distantly related or unrelated others. This paper emphasizes the importance of alloparental care among the Alyawarra-speaking people of Central Australia in 1971-72. It reports on 1439 numerically coded behavioral observations of infant and child carrying, in combination with extensive kinship, genealogical, demographic and census data that reveal previously undetected patterns in child care, including the extreme rarity of carrying by parents (2.85% of carries by mothers, 0.28% by fathers). I suggest that Alyawarra infants and children were treated as part of the Commons, deeply analogous to all shared resources including kangaroos, waterholes and sacred sites. Everyone ultimately benefited from the birth of a child and its later contributions to the welfare of all, so virtually everyone was responsible for participating in its care. I interpret these data in terms of kin selection, reciprocal altruism, mutual aid and other survival strategies that precluded the Tragedy of the Commons in the harsh and capricious environment of the Central Australian desert. child carealloparentingkinshipAustralian Aboriginesapplication/pdfpubliceScholarship, University of Californiahttps://escholarship.org/uc/item/640994nkarticleMathematical Anthropology and Culture Theory, vol 8, iss 1oai:escholarship.org:ark:/13030/qt8cp3p35j2014-06-14T05:45:24Zqt8cp3p35jCOMMENT ON VAZ’ RELATIVES, MOLECULES AND PARTICLES Denham, Woodrow W2014-06-13kinshipDravidianDNASUZYapplication/pdfpubliceScholarship, University of Californiahttps://escholarship.org/uc/item/8cp3p35jarticleMathematical Anthropology and Cultural Theory, vol 7, iss 4oai:escholarship.org:ark:/13030/qt89j302k12014-06-14T04:03:04Zqt89j302k1COMMENT ON VAZ’ RELATIVES, MOLECULES AND PARTICLES Allen, Nicholas2014-06-13KinshipDravidianDNASUZYapplication/pdfpubliceScholarship, University of Californiahttps://escholarship.org/uc/item/89j302k1articleMathematical Anthropology and Cultural Theory, vol 7, iss 2oai:escholarship.org:ark:/13030/qt7963216r2014-06-14T03:45:47Zqt7963216rRELATIVES, MOLECULES AND PARTICLES Vaz, Ruth M2014-06-13The logical nature of kinship terminologies has been argued for from the beginning of kinship studies, starting with Morgan, and more recently, analysts have begun to appreciate the “mathematical beauty” of kin terminological systems. Application of insights from fields such as archaeology, linguistics and molecular genetics is taking kinship studies to levels never before reached. This paper on the kinship system of a Dravidian tribe, the Hill Madia of central India, may be seen as following a similar approach, and the reason being the advantages it gives in understanding this central Dravidian kinship. Most of the ideas and concepts used in the analysis of the Madia data are standard and conventional in the study of human kinship systems, but a few such as complementation, unification and supersymmetry are taken from the natural sciences. Using these concepts as key analytical tools has proven helpful in describing some vital aspects of the Madia kinship. We propose that the Madia kinship may be best understood using as paradigms two natural structures: the DNA (i.e. the deoxyribonucleic acid) molecule, and the physicists’ model of the early supersymmetric universe (known as SUSY). The Madia kinship in its sociocentric view is analogous to the DNA molecule while the same kinship in its egocentric view is configured like the elementary particles in the SUSY model of very early universe. This finding may have implications for social science and perhaps also for natural sciences – for social anthropology because it may have relevance for theories of origins and transformations of human kinship, and for natural sciences because it may imply that the DNA and the SUSY structures share a common mathematical construct. Since this paper is addressed to a primary audience of anthropologists (kinship scholars in particular), I had to describe in detail the essential features of the biological and cosmological structures for the sake of those who may not be all that familiar with these. However, for the sake of natural scientists who may be reading this, I have been easy on anthropological jargon, and at times explained key assumptions in kinship studies. Also, I have avoided serious theoretical discussions in this paper, hoping to do so in the future when the kinship systems of the other central Dravidian societies, such as Muria, Dhurwa, Bison-horn Madia, Gaitha and the Raj Gond have been studied. KinshipDravidianDNASUSYapplication/pdfpubliceScholarship, University of Californiahttps://escholarship.org/uc/item/7963216rarticleMathematical Anthropology and Cultural Theory, vol 7, iss 1oai:escholarship.org:ark:/13030/qt2jb160n32013-06-10T05:15:22Zqt2jb160n3Comment on Denham's 'Beyond Fictions of Closure of Australian Aboriginal Kinship'Sutton, Peter2013-05-01kinshipAustralian Aboriginecultural modelsapplication/pdfpubliceScholarship, University of Californiahttps://escholarship.org/uc/item/2jb160n3articleMathematical Anthropology and Cultural Theory, vol 5, iss 51 - 5oai:escholarship.org:ark:/13030/qt4m43v3x62013-06-10T05:15:17Zqt4m43v3x6Response to Read's Comment on "Beyond Fictions of Closure in Australian Aboriginal Kinship"Denham, Woodrow W2013-06-01kinshipAustralian Aboriginecultural modelsapplication/pdfpubliceScholarship, University of Californiahttps://escholarship.org/uc/item/4m43v3x6articleMathematical Anthropology and Cultural Theory, vol 5, iss 91 - 11oai:escholarship.org:ark:/13030/qt24q537d62013-06-10T05:15:12Zqt24q537d6Comment on Denham's 'Beyond Fictions of Closure in Australian Kinship'Munt, Valerie2013-05-01kinshipAustralian Aborigenescultural modelsapplication/pdfpubliceScholarship, University of Californiahttps://escholarship.org/uc/item/24q537d6articleMathematical Anthropology and Cultural Theory, vol 5, iss 41 - 3oai:escholarship.org:ark:/13030/qt0h71p0c42013-06-10T05:15:02Zqt0h71p0c4Evidence for Systemic Outbreeding: A Rejoinder to Denham, 'Beyond Fictions of Closure in Australian Aboriginal Kinship'Dousset, Laurent2013-05-01kinshipAustralian Aboriginescultural modelapplication/pdfpubliceScholarship, University of Californiahttps://escholarship.org/uc/item/0h71p0c4articleMathematical Anthropology and Cultural Theory, vol 5, iss 11 - 14oai:escholarship.org:ark:/13030/qt8965p47c2013-06-10T05:14:44Zqt8965p47cComment on Denham's 'Beyond Fictions of Closure in Australian Aboriginal Kinship'McConvell, Patrick2013-05-01kinshipAustralian Aboriginecultural modelsapplication/pdfpubliceScholarship, University of Californiahttps://escholarship.org/uc/item/8965p47carticleMathematical Anthropology and Cultural Theory, vol 5, iss 31 - 6oai:escholarship.org:ark:/13030/qt824791d12013-06-10T05:13:51Zqt824791d1Comment on Denham's 'Beyond Fictions of Closure in Australian Aboriginal Kinship'Read, Dwight2013-06-01kinshipAustralian Aboriginescultural modelsapplication/pdfpubliceScholarship, University of Californiahttps://escholarship.org/uc/item/824791d1articleMACT, vol 5, iss 81 - 26oai:escholarship.org:ark:/13030/qt6pp1t55g2013-06-10T05:13:42Zqt6pp1t55gCross-Comment on Denham's 'Beyond Fictions of Closure in Australian Aboriginal Kinship'Sutton, Peter2013-05-01kinshipAustralian Aboriginecultural modelsapplication/pdfpubliceScholarship, University of Californiahttps://escholarship.org/uc/item/6pp1t55garticleMathematical Anthropology and Cultural Theory, vol 5, iss 61 - 6oai:escholarship.org:ark:/13030/qt6h7362st2013-06-10T05:13:33Zqt6h7362stResponse to Comments on "Beyond Fictions of Closure in Australian Aboriginal Kinship"Denham, Woodrow W2013-05-01kinshipAustralian Aboriginescultural modelsapplication/pdfpubliceScholarship, University of Californiahttps://escholarship.org/uc/item/6h7362starticleMathematical Anthropology and Cultural Theory, vol 5, iss 71 - 11oai:escholarship.org:ark:/13030/qt7d69w4sk2013-06-10T05:13:26Zqt7d69w4skBeyond Fictions of Closure in Australian Aboriginal KinshipDenham, Woodrow W2013-05-01kinshipAustralian Aboriginescultural modelsapplication/pdfpubliceScholarship, University of Californiahttps://escholarship.org/uc/item/7d69w4skarticleMathematical Anthropology and Culture Theory, vol 5, iss 11 - 90oai:escholarship.org:ark:/13030/qt6xm8s89k2012-08-19T16:38:33Zqt6xm8s89kKINSHIP, MARRIAGE AND AGE IN ABORIGINAL AUSTRALIADenham, Woodrow2012-05-01McConnell (1930) first described and attempted to explain an “age spiral” in Australian Aboriginal systems of descent, marriage and kinship over eighty years ago. Since then, ethnographic and theoretical research concerning this matter has been sporadic and inconclusive, with societies that display this feature most often being treated as anomalous, transitional, hybrid or aberrant. Atkins (1981) attributed the failure to understand these societies to a lack of realism in the models; specifically to the widely accepted supposition that any ‘normal’ kinship system must entail an infinite or open series of successive genealogical generations each of which is both discrete and closed. Since that supposition can apply only to societies in which mean husband-wife age differences are zero or negligibly small, he suggested that the age spiral, reported in Australian Aboriginal societies where husband-wife age differences generally exceed 14 years, rests on a finite set of open generations rather than an infinite set of closed generations. His proposal means that the concept of generations as an infinite series of discrete, closed strata may not reflect a human universal, but rather may be an example of European ethnocentrism and over-simplification being interpreted mistakenly as self-evident scientific truth.This paper compares models of Australian Aboriginal kinship based on traditional generational closure with models based on generational openness as embedded in age spirals or, more accurately, age biased helices. The objective is to salvage generational openness if it has any merit and to reject it if it does not. The research is based on my own and others’ fieldwork as well as archival research and comparative studies of Aboriginal societies in Central Australia, Cape York Peninsula, Arnhem Land and Western Australia. Analytical methods include formal mathematical models; mechanical, statistical and network models; and computer simulations. The approach is primarily nonverbal, demographic and quantitative rather than verbal and cognitive. The findings show that open and closed models entail radically different expectations about the structure and operation of Aboriginal societies in areas including but not limited to: genealogical frameworks, language group endogamy and exogamy, inbreeding coefficients, MBD vs. FZD marriage, prescriptive vs. proscriptive marriage rules, directed marriage cycles and classificatory kinship. In addition to comparing the strengths and weaknesses of open and closed models, the paper also evaluates the strengths and weaknesses of open models by themselves, in search of deficiencies that might justify their rejection. Several significant problems are introduced and discussed, but seem not to constitute fatal flaws.The findings are likely to be of greater interest to scientists who are concerned with the survival of Aboriginal societies over the last 50 millennia and of lesser interest to those who focus exclusively on structures of systems of kin classification. The impact of these findings on the broad study of Dravidian and Dravidian-like kinship terminologies may be significant, but I am not qualified to investigate that issue and leave it to others. An extended and detailed analysis of relationships between openness and language group exogamy is in preparation.kinshipmarriageAboriginal Australiaapplication/pdfCC-BY-NC-SAeScholarship, University of Californiahttps://escholarship.org/uc/item/6xm8s89karticleoai:escholarship.org:ark:/13030/qt5m51s6k62011-10-08T23:44:51Zqt5m51s6k6FAMILIAL GENERATIONS TUTORIALDenham, Woodrow W2011-09-15This tutorial explores the dimensions and contours of Australian Aboriginal generations focusing on the implications of asymmetrical generation intervals with regard to bilateral cross cousin marriage, circulating connubia, senior/junior marriage systems and generic age biased marriage systems. It is based on recent data showing that on average men in Australian Aboriginal societies are 14+ years older than their wives, much greater than the worldwide mean wife-husband age difference of 3 to 5 years. The resulting highly asymmetric generation intervals (maternal = 28 years, paternal = 42 years) have important biobehavioral implications for the structure of Australian Aboriginal societies. People who work well independently and have some background in kinship studies can use the tutorial alone, or instructors can use it as a multi-session segment of an upper-level kinship course.application/pdfpubliceScholarship, University of Californiahttps://escholarship.org/uc/item/5m51s6k6articleoai:escholarship.org:ark:/13030/qt7cr531r52011-07-03T23:31:31Zqt7cr531r5LETTER CONCERNING “ON THE STRUCTURE OF DRAVIDIAN RELATIONSHIP SYSTEMS” BY MAURO WILLIAM BARBOSA DE ALMEIDA In MACT Volume 3 No. 1, August 2010Denham, Woodrow W2010-10-09application/pdfpubliceScholarship, University of Californiahttps://escholarship.org/uc/item/7cr531r5articleoai:escholarship.org:ark:/13030/qt394512jm2011-07-03T23:26:14Zqt394512jmCOMMENT ON BARBOSA DE ALMEIDA “ON THE STRUCTURE OF DRAVIDIAN RELATIONSHIP SYSTEMS”White, Douglas R.2010-08-01BdA’s model does a service by clarifying the precise structure of Trautmann’s paradigm of Dravidian South Asian (DSA) kin term structure (KTS) as rewrite rules: expressions in an algebra of Dravidian KTS that can be only shortened by rewrite rules. It imposes a “Dravidian cross-cousin marriage rule” expounded at great effort by Trautmann: “I do not hesitate to reconstruct for the Proto-Dravidian kinship system not only a terminology but a rule of social organization” contra “Sheffler’s [ineffectual] counterargument that the rule and the semantic contrast are not invariable concomitants of one another …. The question is no longer whether a cross-cousin marriage rule is ancestrally Dravidian, but what precise form that ancestral rule took” (Trautmann 1981:235-236). I will refer to BdA’s model as “the Trautmann algebra” (Tjon Sie Fat and Trautmann, 1998), so as to expose its weaknesses independently of BdA’s model since I would expect that after reviewing the commentaries BdA would modify his current model into a paradigmatic form that accords historically and ethnographically with Dravidian terminological variants. There is no loss here in the value of Trautmann’s groundbreaking work, but a significant gain in improving the quality of his model of Dravidian KTS.application/pdfpubliceScholarship, University of Californiahttps://escholarship.org/uc/item/394512jmarticleoai:escholarship.org:ark:/13030/qt3z3963162011-07-03T23:25:58Zqt3z396316CROSS - COMMENT ON “ON THE STRUCTURE OF DRAVIDIAN RELATIONSHIP SYSTEMS” BY MAURO WILLIAM BARBOSA DE ALMEIDAChit Hlaing, F. K. L.2010-08-01The Comment of Dwight Read also expresses much of my own view on this paper. I agree in particular with the views of Read, that "the formal properties of the analysis should have ethnographic validity". But there is something more from my point of view: Read says a good deal here about the problem with rewrite rules and their equivalent in the present paper. But what he does not make explicit is what I've written and said many times [cf.]. Namely, that "the structure" of the genealogical space cannot be given by the organization of kin-type strings! I shall not rehash the demonstration of this here. Genealogical space has a structure (not unrelated to the algebraic structure of kin terminologies in Read’s work [Lehman and Witz 1974, Lehman 2000] having to do with up/down, etc., namely ascent/descent, lineality/non-lineality (not identical with the usual sense of "collaterality "), generation and the like; and therewith, the way individual are placed into this structure necessarily imports into it the basic idea of sex and (noting also Read’s comments on Dravidian) relative age! The latter is left out by our author precisely because it cannot be made to follow from kin-type string organizationapplication/pdfpubliceScholarship, University of Californiahttps://escholarship.org/uc/item/3z396316articleoai:escholarship.org:ark:/13030/qt3xs3c8zg2011-07-03T23:25:55Zqt3xs3c8zgEGOCENTRIC AND SOCIOCENTRIC STRUCTURE IN CLASSIFICATORY KINSHIP SYSTEMS: FOUR THEOREMSWhite, Douglas R.2010-08-01The feature of Dravidian kinship terminology is typically that male lines on ego’s “side” marry and call their “affines” relatives in a set of opposing male lines. The egocentric versus sociocentric debate in Anthropology over the social network implications of Dravidian terminology is resolved with proof of a single theorem: For a connected network A of marriages between consanguineals, including only the additional ancestral relatives leading back to the consanguineal ancestors of those couples, then if the kin of the couples are consistently sided egocentrically, according to Dravidian kinship terminology, then all relatives in network A are consistently sided sociocentrically, whether sides are defined through opposing sides V of male kin, U of female kin, or both. Two other theorems prove that if all the consanguineal marriages in network A are same generation (same number of generations back to the common ancestor for the husband as for the wife) then if sidedness is V it is also U, if U it is also V. Finally if network A is both U and V then all of its marriages are same generation and the marriage structure of A is one of implicit alternate-generational moieties, as in a Kariera kinship network.application/pdfpubliceScholarship, University of Californiahttps://escholarship.org/uc/item/3xs3c8zgarticleoai:escholarship.org:ark:/13030/qt2ts445n82011-07-03T23:25:50Zqt2ts445n8ANSWER TO COMMENTS BY DOUGLAS WHITE, DWIGHT READ AND F. K. LEHMANBARBOSA DE ALMEIDA, MAURO WILLIAM2010-08-01The goal in constructing this artificial language is not to construct a grammar for a subset of natural languages. In other words, the artificial language of kin terms built by means of symbols B, Z, F, M, S and D is not intended as a grammar that would generate strings having syntactical or phonetic similitude with strings in any natural language, even in the restricted domain of kinship. This would have been a linguistic problem, not a problem in cultural theory. The formal language K* is a means to construct a genealogical space endowed with a very simple structure. The basic hypothesis is that kinship terminologies in natural languages are distinguished in the way they classify the paths in the genealogical space. To describe these actually existing classifications is a task of empirical research. The task of the theory is to construct a theoretically-based classification of the genealogical space that should reproduce the empirically given classification, or some relevant feature of it.application/pdfpubliceScholarship, University of Californiahttps://escholarship.org/uc/item/2ts445n8articleoai:escholarship.org:ark:/13030/qt8qp241nc2011-07-03T23:25:46Zqt8qp241ncCOMMENT ON “ON THE STRUCTURE OF DRAVIDIAN RELATIONSHIP SYSTEMS” BY MAURO WILLIAM BARBOSA DE ALMEIDARead, Dwight W2010-08-01The analysis provided in this paper is not that of any particular Dravidian terminology, let alone a proto-Dravidian terminology. Rather, it the analysis of an abstracted Dravidian terminology formed by dropping one of the four "principles of opposition" that Louis Dumont (and Trautmann) considered to be essential to Dravidian terminologies, namely that of relative age, as if relative age is not an integral part of Dravidian terminologies. De Almeida merely notes (after quoting Dumont (1953)): "we ignore distinctions concerning relative age" (p. 2). One may want to simplify in order to keep tractable the algebraic argument regarding products of kin types, but this means we are dealing with a formal analysis constructed at an unstated remove from the ethnographic reality of any Dravidian terminology.application/pdfpubliceScholarship, University of Californiahttps://escholarship.org/uc/item/8qp241ncarticleoai:escholarship.org:ark:/13030/qt9t64g4cm2011-07-03T23:25:42Zqt9t64g4cmON THE STRUCTURE OF DRAVIDIAN RELATIONSHIP SYSTEMSBARBOSA DE ALMEIDA, MAURO WILLIAM2010-08-01We propose a calculus for kinship and affinity relationships that generates the classification of Dravidian terminologies proposed by Dumont (1953 and 1958) in the form given to them by Trautmann (1981). This calculus operates on the language D* of words for kinship and affinity, endowed with rules that select amongst the words in D* a sub-set of words in canonical Dravidian form. We prove that these rules generate uniquely the Dravidian structure (as in Trautmann's model B), and we demonstrate that that Trautmann's model B is the correct version of his model A. We discuss the meaning of the anticommutative structure of D*, and finally point to a generalization of the proposed calculus allowing its rules to be seen in the more general Iroquois context.application/pdfpubliceScholarship, University of Californiahttps://escholarship.org/uc/item/9t64g4cmarticleoai:escholarship.org:ark:/13030/qt7dc0m5jj2011-07-03T23:25:39Zqt7dc0m5jjTHE GENERATIVE LOGIC OF DRAVIDIAN LANGUAGE TERMINOLOGIESRead, Dwight W2010-08-01Classificatory (“bifurcate merging”) terminologies with a ‘cross-cousin’ marriage rule are sometimes grouped together as Dravidian terminologies despite significant structural differences among the terminologies so classified. For example, the Kariera terminology has four ‘grandparent’ and ‘grandchild’ terms and does not have an older/younger distinction for ‘cross-cousin’ terms. In contrast, Dravidian language terminologies of India typically have two ‘grandparent’ and ‘grandchild’ terms and make an older/younger distinction for cross-cousin terms. These differences are not superficial and relate both to substantive differences in social organization for the societies in question and the “meaning” of ‘cross-cousin’ marriage. In this paper I develop the generative logic for the used by the Nanjilnattu Vellalar, a Tamil-speaking group in southern India. This logic underlies the structural features of the Dravidian terminologies such as the parallel/cross distinction used to characterize marriages in societies with Dravidian terminologies. The generative logic structurally distinguishes Dravidian language terminologies from other, superficially similar terminologies such as the Kariera terminology.application/pdfpubliceScholarship, University of Californiahttps://escholarship.org/uc/item/7dc0m5jjarticleoai:escholarship.org:ark:/13030/qt3kx080582011-07-03T23:25:34Zqt3kx08058CROSS - COMMENT ON TERMINOLOGIES AND NATURAL LANGUAGESBallonoff, Paul2010-08-01Since what seems to be the first treatment in the 1882 [M] as an “algebra”, the topic now known as “kinship algebra” has focused on the correct composition of strings of symbols used to form empirical systems of kinship terms, as used in naturally occurring languages. The papers and Comments here, especially [B, R2, WD] have summarized much of the history since that initial treatment. While their principal focus is on a particular set of kinship terminologies which have come to be known as Dravidian, the papers and discussion raise a number of issues on the basic form of, and purpose of, the use of mathematics in developing cultural theory. [B], following the extensive discussions in [T], recognizes the nonassociative context of natural languages and of kinship generally, but refers to associative algebras for kinship, while [R2] seems to simply assume the necessary forms are associative. [B] applies group theory, as have many others summarized in the citations of these papers; [WD] evaluates that use. Finally, the Comments also focus on “careful ethnographic description” [WD].application/pdfpubliceScholarship, University of Californiahttps://escholarship.org/uc/item/3kx08058articleoai:escholarship.org:ark:/13030/qt0kc7r58s2011-07-03T17:33:19Zqt0kc7r58sRESTATEMENT OF THE THEORY OF CULTURAL RULESBallonoff, Paul2008-03-10We examine a theory of cultural rules as mathematical transforms. Certain cultural rules may be represented as set functions (called here “transforms”) between possible structures (called here “configurations” denoted “C”) on generations of an evolutionary sequence. If R is a rule and R its transform, the outcome of R acting of a starting configuration C is a set denoted RC of possible configurations. The smallest fixed point of the transform R of a rule R (called the “minimal structure” of that rule) is the descriptive diagram for illustration of the operation of certain rules traditionally used by ethnographers. A combinatorial density computing certain key population statistics of a cultural system is derivable from the minimal structure of the rule, enabling empirically testable (and successfully tested) predictions of observable population measures on systems using that rule. Therefore we may conclude that cultural structure and the uncertainty inherent in cultural systems are but two parts of one framework. Cultural theory thus has a structure in some ways like that of quantum theory, and is a physically testable physical theory. But quantum theory has been under development for a century. The task for a comparable cultural theory is simply to get started.application/pdfpubliceScholarship, University of Californiahttps://escholarship.org/uc/item/0kc7r58sarticleoai:escholarship.org:ark:/13030/qt67x4t8ts2011-07-03T17:33:14Zqt67x4t8tsCollective Violence in Darfur: An Agent-based Model of Pastoral Nomad/Sedentary Peasant InteractionKuznar, Lawrence ASedlmeyer, Robert2005-11-12The genocide in Darfur, Sudan is the first major humanitarian crisis of the 21st century. Over 2 million people have been displaced and tens of thousands have been killed. Popular explanations of the conflict root it in racism and prejudice orchestrated by the Sudanese government and abetted by the world community’s negligence. While the complicity of the Sudanese government is evident, a closer analysis of the sequence of events suggests that the crisis is rooted in local conflicts over material resources brought about by an ecological crisis. Standard social theory has proven inadequate for analyzing the grass roots nature of the Darfur crisis. We have developed a flexible agent-based computer simulation of pastoral nomad/sedentary peasant interaction (NOMAD) that can be adapted to particular environmental and social settings. Our focus on how environmental and material factors condition individual agent response allows us to model how collective behaviors (mass raiding, genocide) can emerge from individual motives and needs. Many factors influence the conflict in Darfur (ethnicity, global politics, Sudanese politics). However, our simulations reinforce the analyses of some social scientists that argue the Darfur crisis is the inevitable result of the breakdown of land use in the face of growing populations, marginal habitats, and an unprecedented ecological crisis.Darfurgenocideagent-based modelingconflictpastoralismapplication/pdfpubliceScholarship, University of Californiahttps://escholarship.org/uc/item/67x4t8tsarticleoai:escholarship.org:ark:/13030/qt7gb031cf2011-07-03T17:33:08Zqt7gb031cfTHE INFLUENCE OF ADAPTIVE POTENTIAL ON PROXIMATE MECHANISMS OF NATURAL SELECTIONColby, Benjamin NAzevedo, KathrynMoore, Carmella C2003-07-01This article tests a theory of overall adaptive potential at the individual and cultural level. Adaptive potential is measured by well-being conditions in each of three realms of human attention: efficacy and diversity in the biophysical realm, affiliation and autonomy in the interpersonal realm, and (provisionally) components of creativity in the symbolic realm. These conditions are assessed through the perspective of the self and the social and cultural surround among 131 individuals in a multicultural sample of Southern California college students. The theory is based on proximate mechanisms of natural selection and cultural transmission. This is largely an exploratory study. The categories measured gain their validity chiefly through the theoretical reasoning that gave rise to them (advanced in more detail in Colby, this same issue) and through the regression of the adaptive potential measure with measures of physical and psychological health.adaptive potentialefficacyaffiliationautonomymulticultural sampleapplication/pdfpubliceScholarship, University of Californiahttps://escholarship.org/uc/item/7gb031cfarticleoai:escholarship.org:ark:/13030/qt09k717j62011-07-03T17:30:10Zqt09k717j6THE READ-LEHMAN LETTERS ON KINSHIP MATHEMATICSRead, Dwight WChit Hlaing, F. K. L.2005-01-04Following the publication of the letter from Dwight Read, (see “New Results: The Logic of Older/Younger Sibling Terms in Classificatory Terminologies” in MACT Letters, November 9 2004) Kris Lehman (F. K. L. Chit Hlaing) responded to that letter. Together Professors Read and Lehman then agreed to compile an exchange, including previous discussions, and have submitted the sequence of letters below to MACT. They offer the exchange both to record some important developments in the mathematical theory of kinship category systems as reflected in their joint work in progress, and to record the way such work develops through technical exchanges.Kinshipgenealogysibling termsclassificatory terminologyHawaiian Terminologyapplication/pdfpubliceScholarship, University of Californiahttps://escholarship.org/uc/item/09k717j6articleoai:escholarship.org:ark:/13030/qt6kh181t12011-07-03T13:26:25Zqt6kh181t1Experimenting with 'Lad Culture': A Simulation Based on Willis' "Learning to Labor"Downey, Sean S.2005-11-12This paper presents a case-study demonstrating how traditional ethnographic fieldwork may benefit from analysis using computer simulation modeling tools. Paul Willis’ classic ethnography, “Learning to Labor” is represented using the system-modeling software Stella, and used experimentally to test several aspects of the worker-business relationship. I include a description of the models, the rationale for using systems modeling instead of agent-based modeling, and results from two sets of simulation experiments. I describe how the model represents ethnographic data, how it was used experimentally, and implications of the research as a critique of “Learning to Labor.” I close by suggesting that the semantic conception of theories (McKelvey 1999) can be an appropriate model of scientific investigation to link social theory, ethnographic fieldwork, and simulation modeling.simulation modelingethnographyculture theoryapplication/pdfpubliceScholarship, University of Californiahttps://escholarship.org/uc/item/6kh181t1articleoai:escholarship.org:ark:/13030/qt4j39f77c2011-07-03T13:10:04Zqt4j39f77cTOWARD A THEORY OF CULTURE AND ADAPTIVE POTENTIALColby, Benjamin N2003-07-01The theory of culture commonly used in science and lay writings alike is inadequate for interdisciplinary research and cannot incorporate recent findings in the biological and behavioral sciences. Nor can the commonly used theory deal adequately with questions of cultural well-being and cultural pathology. Attempts to develop new theories of culture with epidemiological models and notions like memes have been limited in their usefulness. This paper suggests a new evolutionary approach that spans both the phenomenal and ideational worlds and speaks to questions of agency in cultural transmission. The main emphasis of the theory concerns adaptive potential with some preliminary measures of cultural well-being that predict physical and mental health. Adaptive potential theory can also be used to define modalities of interpersonal relationships. This latter application of the theory suggests areas of theoretical development and testing for future work.culture theorymemesadaptive potentialwell-beingpathologyapplication/pdfpubliceScholarship, University of Californiahttps://escholarship.org/uc/item/4j39f77carticleoai:escholarship.org:ark:/13030/qt3wx134vt2011-07-03T09:28:24Zqt3wx134vtTHE PHYSICAL FARM BUDGET: AN INDIGENOUS OPTIMIZING MANAGERIAL ALGORITHMLeaf, Murray J2000-11-01In the debate on peasant rationality, no one has asked whether peasants have the kinds of relatively complex formal models that rational calculation requires, and, if so, whether the use them and whether they produce the results they seem to predict. The answer is “yes” in all cases, and the models can be elicited and displayed as a computer spread-sheet. This paper provides and demonstrates such models from two farms in one area in eastern Maharashtra state, India, that readers can download and examine on their own.peasantsformal modelsrationalityIndiafarmsapplication/pdfpubliceScholarship, University of Californiahttps://escholarship.org/uc/item/3wx134vtarticleoai:escholarship.org:ark:/13030/qt26x930vn2011-07-02T15:50:06Zqt26x930vnNEW RESULTS: THE LOGIC OF OLDER/YOUNGER SIBLING TERMS IN
CLASSIFICATORY TERMINOLOGIESRead, Dwight W2004-11-09In this letter I demonstrate the analytical power of identifying the generative logic of kinship terminology structures and clarify aspects of the evolutionary origin of structures that have been attributed to unexplained processes such as adding or subtracting equations, or adding or subtracting attributes that ignore the systemic generative nature of kinship terminology structures.Kinshipcultural evolutionsibling termsclassificatory terminologyapplication/pdfpubliceScholarship, University of Californiahttps://escholarship.org/uc/item/26x930vnarticleoai:escholarship.org:ark:/13030/qt66m2b6sf2011-07-02T15:50:01Zqt66m2b6sfPRESCRIPTIVE KINSHIP SYSTEMS, PERMUTATIONS, GROUPS AND GRAPHSDe Meur, GiseleGottcheiner, Alain2000-11-01We show how mathematical methods may be applied to the description of all potential prescriptive kinship systems, allowing us to classify them and to understand why some marriage rules are more frequent than others. The modeling will successively use permutations for representing filiation in direct line, group theory to model the whole system, and graphs to help in enumerating possible cases.kinship systemsmarriage rulespermutation groupsapplication/pdfpubliceScholarship, University of Californiahttps://escholarship.org/uc/item/66m2b6sfarticleoai:escholarship.org:ark:/13030/qt2hr071tr2011-07-02T15:49:55Zqt2hr071trNOTES TOWARD A MATHEMATICAL THEORY OF CULTUREBallonoff, Paul2000-11-01Over the last several decades, anthropology has created testable theory comparable to that found in other sciences. This paper summaries one view of that theory, the perspective of rule bound systems theory, or RBS. RBS theory turns out to imply that much of what has been taught and applied as “social statistics” for the least several decades, is based on the wrong combinatorial density function, which in turns helps explain why social forecasting is so often simply wrong. RBS however has made several tested correct forecasts, including in areas that have proven resistant to previous forecasting. RBS theory also has testable implications on broad scale questions of evolutionary biology.culturesystems theorymodelsforecastingapplication/pdfpubliceScholarship, University of Californiahttps://escholarship.org/uc/item/2hr071trarticleoai:escholarship.org:ark:/13030/qt05c6f2p52011-07-02T09:08:46Zqt05c6f2p5Perceiving Ethnic Differences: Consensus Analysis and Personhood in Welsh-American PopulationsCaulkins, D. DouglasOffer-Westort, MollyTrosset, Carol2005-11-12In a multi-site study of Welsh-American identity, informants were asked to rate the "Welshness" and "Americanness" of the behavior in a set of 21 scenarios, or brief narratives designed to exemplify Welsh and American personhood concepts. In addition, consultants were asked to rate how desirable or ideal the behaviors were, in their opinion. The Welsh-American population in the two sites, one in Iowa and the other on the Vermont/New York border, varied from low to high social visibility. Using consensus analysis of the scenario data, we test of a series of hypotheses concerning the perceived differences between "Welsh" and "American" personhood in high and low visibility sites and between the diaspora populations and the homeland of Wales.Walesdiasporasethnic identityconsensus analysisapplication/pdfpubliceScholarship, University of Californiahttps://escholarship.org/uc/item/05c6f2p5articleoai:escholarship.org:ark:/13030/qt9s12d4c82011-07-02T09:08:41Zqt9s12d4c8INFORMATION FLOWS IN KINSHIP NETWORKSJorion, Paul J.M.2000-11-01The capacity of kinship networks to be multi-functional, i.e. to shape other domains of the social life such as religion or the economy, reflects their function of channeling information flows. The more tightly the kinship network is structured into self-reproducing exogamous units, the better it resists the historical trend of losing its function as information channel and jointly its grip on the other aspects of the social life. For kinship networks to hold their multi-functionality, do actors need to be aware of their structure? In other terms, do the rules need to be explicit and followed in full awareness by the participants to the network? Or are the structuring principles able to operate behind the scenes even when their subjective representation is absent? The author reports on this the views expressed in personal conversations by his former professors: Lévi-Strauss, Fortes, Leach, Needham, Goody, Barnes and Macfarlane. In supporting the second view, that the awareness of the actors is indifferent, quantitative anthropology and psychoanalysis reveal their surprising affinity.kinship networksinformation flowsstructureapplication/pdfpubliceScholarship, University of Californiahttps://escholarship.org/uc/item/9s12d4c8articleoai:escholarship.org:ark:/13030/qt1hs7w49v2011-07-02T09:08:33Zqt1hs7w49vAnthropology, Mathematics, Kinship: A Tribute to the Anthropologist Per Hage and His Work with the Mathematician Frank HararyJenkins, David2008-07-01Over a long and productive career, Per Hage produced a diverse and influential body of work. He conceptualized and solved a range of anthropological problems, often with the aid of mathematical models from graph theory. In three books and many research articles, Hage, and his mathematician collaborator Frank Harary, developed innovative analyses of exchange relations, including marriage, ceremonial, and resource exchange. They advanced network models for the study of communication, language evolution, kinship and classification. And they demonstrated that graph theory provides an analytical framework that is both subtle enough to preserve culturally specific relations and abstract enough to allow for genuine cross-cultural comparison. With graph theory, two common analytical problems in anthropology can be avoided: the problem of hiding cultural phenomena with weak cross-cultural generalizations, and the problem of making misleading comparisons based on incomparable levels of abstraction. This paper provides an overview of Hage’s work in an attempt to place it in the broader context of anthropology in the latetwentieth and early-twenty first centuries.application/pdfpubliceScholarship, University of Californiahttps://escholarship.org/uc/item/1hs7w49varticleoai:escholarship.org:ark:/13030/qt9cs6m00w2011-07-02T09:08:29Zqt9cs6m00wA COMPUTATIONAL APPROACH TO THE COGNITION OF SPACE AND ITS LINGUISTIC EXPRESSIONSLehman (F. K. L. Chit Hlaing), F KBennardo, Giovanni2003-06-01To advance an algebraical-computational view of knowledge representation we examine the domain of space as an abstract relational system with wide cross domain applicability with regard to relational properties generally. It is no accident that any coherent system of relations is understood as a 'space' of such relations. Jackendoff's work shows this. We have good grounds for considering spatial relations a universal ‘modular’ faculty of human cognition.Just to set the stage for our paper and raise issues we need to address, we will first address certain fairly recent work done on the cognition of space by Levinson, Herskovits, and Talmy, and discuss their data and ours from languages like Italian, Burmese, Haka Chin, and Tongan and show that relativist conclusions follow directly from neo-behaviorist failure to be abstract enough in dealing with conceptual-relational structure.Then we will introduce basic concepts of LOCUS, PLACE, MOTION, PATH and DIRECTION and will provide definitions of spatial prepositions like ‘at’, ‘on’ and‘in’, as well as discuss in detail prepositions like ‘to’, ‘towards’, ‘from’, ‘away from’, and ‘via’. We will conclude our work by indicating a minimal universal content of the domain of space that will eventually become the axiomatizable component of the system from which the linguistic expressions derive as theorems of that same system.knowledge representationalgebraic modelsspatial relationsapplication/pdfpubliceScholarship, University of Californiahttps://escholarship.org/uc/item/9cs6m00warticleoai:escholarship.org:ark:/13030/qt3g59f8zc2011-07-01T07:21:32Zqt3g59f8zcFORMAL ANALYSIS OF KINSHIP TERMINOLOGIES AND ITS RELATIONSHIP TO WHAT CONSTITUTES KINSHIP (COMPLETE TEXT)Read, Dwight W2000-11-01The goal of this paper is to relate formal analysis of kinship terminologies to a better understanding of who, culturally, are defined as our kin. Part I of the paper begins with a brief discussion as to why neither of the two claims: (1) kinship terminologies primarily have to do with social categories and (2) kinship terminologies are based on classification of genealogically specified relationships traced through genitor and genetrix, is adequate as a basis for a formal analysis of a kinship terminology.The social category argument is insufficient as it does not account for the logic uncovered through the formalism of rewrite rule analysis regarding the distribution of kin types over kin terms when kin terms are mapped onto a genealogical grid. Any ormal account must be able to account at least for the results obtained through rewrite rule analysis. Though rewrite rule analysis has made the logic of kinship terminologies more evident, the second claim must also be rejected for both theoretical and empirical reasons. Empirically, ethnographic evidence does not provide a consistent view of how genitors and genetrixes should be defined and even the existence of culturally recognized genitors is debatable for some groups. In addition, kinship relations for many groups are reckoned through a kind of kin term calculus independent of genealogical connections. Theoretically, rewrite rule formalism is descriptive and not explanatory of kinship terminology features. Four substantive problems with rewrite rule formalism are identified and illustrated with an example based on the concepts, Friend and Enemy. In Part II these problems are resolved when a kinship terminology is viewed from the perspective of a structured, symbolic system in which there is both a symbol calculus and a set of rules of instantiation giving the symbols empirical content.The way in which a kinship terminology constitutes a structured symbol system is illustrated with both the American/English and the Shipibo Indian (Peru) kinship terminologies. Each of these terminologies can be generated from primitive (or atomic) symbols using certain equations that give the structure its form and where the structure is constrained to satisfy two properties hypothesized to distinguish kinship terminology structures from the symbol structures. The structural analysis predicts correctly the distribution of kin types across the kin terms when the atomic kin terms/symbols are instantiated via the primitive kin types. In addition, features of the terminologies that heretofore have been assumed to arise for reasons extrinsic to the internal logic of the terminology are shown to be a consequence of the logic of how the symbol structure is generated.kinshipmathematical modelsformal analysissymbol systemapplication/pdfpubliceScholarship, University of Californiahttps://escholarship.org/uc/item/3g59f8zcarticleoai:escholarship.org:ark:/13030/qt5cp5z12s2011-07-01T07:10:33Zqt5cp5z12sTongan Kinship Terminology: Insights from an Algebraic AnalysisBennardo, GiovanniRead, Dwight W2005-12-22We present an algebraic account of the Tongan kinship terminology (TKT) that provides an insightful journey into the fabric of Tongan society. We begin with the ethnographic account of a social event. The account provides us with the activities of that day and the centrality of kin relations in the event, but it does not inform us of the underlying logic for the conceptual system of kin relations that the participants bring with them. Rather, it is a slice in time of an ongoing dynamic process that links behavior with kin and kin with behavior. To fully understand this interplay we need to account for the structure underlying their conceptual system of kin relations that is being activated during the event. Thus, we introduce a formal, algebraically based account of TKT as a way to make evident what is otherwise “hidden” logic. This account brings to the fore the underlying logic of TKT and the features of TKT that are a consequence of that logic. This also allows us to distinguish between structural features of the kinship system that arise from the logic of TKT versus features that must have arisen through the intervention of, or intersection with, other cultural conceptual systems. Finally, we revisit the ethnographic account and we consider those aspects whose explication must lie in other cultural interventions, thus linking the kinship conceptual system to other conceptual domains such as ranking and inheritance.Tongakinship theoryalgebraic modelscultural modelsfahu relationshipapplication/pdfpubliceScholarship, University of Californiahttps://escholarship.org/uc/item/5cp5z12sarticle