Kinship

My reply continues the discussion of Crow-Omaha skewing, Alternate-Generation equations, Bifurcate-Collateral and Bifurcate Merging kinship terminological types in the contexts of the contributions by Trautmann & Whiteley, Read, Parkin, Lea and Ensor. Special attention is given to the logical pitfalls in the definition and usage of the notion of “crossness” and to the need to re-focus on a more accurate notion of “merging.” Empirical evidence for the transition from Alternate Generation equivalences to Crow-Omaha and from Bifurcate Collateral to Bifurcate Merging is revisited. Further information is provided regarding correlations between Alternate Generation equivalences and Crow-Omaha skewing, on the one hand, and patterns of sibling and cousin terminologies, on the other hand. Among the topics of general methodological and theoretical interest, my reply specifically addresses the scope of kinship studies and the methodology of integrating anthropology and linguistics in the study of kinship terminologies. Finally, the author presents an update on the “Out-of-America” theory of human kinship evolution in the light of recent advances in population genetics and ancient DNA analysis.