riviere - the amerindianization of descent and affinity.pdf

8/11/2019 Riviere - The Amerindianization of Descent and Affinity.pdf

1/11

Persehttp://www.persee.fr

The Amerindianization of Descent and Affinity

Peter Rivire L'Homme, Anne 1993, Volume 33, Numro 126p. 507 - 516 Voir l'article en ligne

AvertissementL'diteur du site PERSEE le Ministre de la jeunesse, de l'ducation nationale et de la recherche, Direction de l'enseignement suprieur ,Sous-direction des bibliothques et de la documentation dtient la proprit intellectuelle et les droits dexploitation. A ce titre il est titulaire desdroits d'auteur et du droit sui generis du producteur de bases de donnes sur ce site conformment la loi n98-536 du 1er juillet 1998 relative auxbases de donnes. Les oeuvres reproduites sur le site PERSEE sont protges par les dispositions gnrales du Code de la proprit intellectuelle. Droits et devoirs des utilisateurs

Pour un usage strictement priv, la simple reproduction du contenu de ce site est libre.Pour un usage scientifique ou pdagogique, des fins de recherches, d'enseignement ou de communication excluant toute exploitationcommerciale, la reproduction et la communication au public du contenu de ce site sont autorises, sous rserve que celles-ci servent d'illustration,ne soient pas substantielles et ne soient pas expressment limites (plans ou photographies). La mention Le Ministre de la jeunesse, delducation nationale et de la recherche, Direction de lenseignement suprieur, Sous-direction des bibliothques et de la documentation surchaque reproduction tire du site est obligatoire ainsi que le nom de la revue et- lorsqu'ils sont indiqus - le nom de l'auteur et la rfrence dudocument reproduit. Toute autre reproduction ou communication au public, intgrale ou substantielle du contenu de ce site, par quelque procd que ce soit, de l'diteuroriginal de l'oeuvre, de l'auteur et de ses ayants droit. La reproduction et l'exploitation des photographies et des plans, y compris des fins commerciales, doivent tre autoriss par l'diteur du site, LeMinistre de la jeunesse, de lducation nationale et de la recherche, Direction de lenseignement suprieur, Sous-direction des bibliothques et dela documentation (voir http://www.sup.adc.education.fr/bib/ ). La source et les crdits devront toujours tre mentionns.
http://www.persee.fr/http://www.persee.fr/showPage.do?urn=hom_0439-4216_1993_num_33_126_369653http://www.persee.fr/showPage.do?urn=hom_0439-4216_1993_num_33_126_369653http://www.persee.fr/


2/11

P E T E R R I V I E R E

The Amerindianization of Descent and Affinity

n 1975 Jean Jackson, reviewing Lowland South American ethnography, wrotethat, despite the significant increa se in the quantity and quality of such work,South America remained, anthropologically speaking, the least known contin

ent . This state-of-affairs is probably still true despite the fact that the numberof publications that have appeared over the past fifteen years far exceeds that fromthe period Jack so n was writing about . Furthermore, in my estimation the recentwork done on Lowland South America, with the possible exception of that fromPapua New Guinea (there are some fascinating parallels between the two areas thathave been little explored so far), is amongst the riche st and mo st innovative thathas appeared during that time. Unfortunately there is no space in this review toexplore fully the reasons for this relative obscurity, although hints about my thinkingon them occur in the text.

It has been necessary to make harsh and arbitrary decision s about what topicsto cover and whose contributions to include. The editors of this volume encouragedme to take a personal sta nd so this article is very much a personal overview. Iconsider only a fraction of the work of which I think highly and have excludedalmost everything of which my opinion is low . t is up to the reader to decidewhy no reference is made to any particular work.

The topics with which this review is mainly concerned, de sce nt and affinity, fallwithin the general area of what is called social organization. This may sound dulland prosaic, but I believe that the ideas that have been deveJoped over the past fifteenyears have taken us a long way from the standard anthropological definitions ofthese terms. Ind eed it has become clear that within Lowland America it is extremely dangerous to draw a di st inction between the social and the cultural, and becauseof thi s there is a general lesso n for anthropology to learn. However , before turnin g

o these topics [ want to spend a valuable paragraph o a different matter one that

has to a degree dominated the South American scene over the past two decade s .t

is the debate, if that is the right word, between the various prot ago nists of materialist,ecological and sociobiological explanations of social organization.

L Homme 126 -128, av dec. 1993, XXXIII (2-4), pp. 507 516.


3/11

508 P T R R I V I E R

This is a vast topic and to do justice to it would require more space and t imethan I think it deserves. Initially the debate was driven by a naive scientism thatassumed positivistic facts would speak for themselves. If you collected enoughdata, regardless of their social and cultural context , and piled them on top of eachother, some sort of answer would appear. This was then replaced by ideologicalcommitments, often tempered by a misplaced teleology, that were basicallyreductionist in approach. Although some author s have continued to maintain areluctance to acknowledge that the products of the human mind are also real andinfluential factors in a people s relationship to a given env ironment , a degree ofmoderation ha s crept in. Monocausal explanations have given way to an acceptanceof multicausal factors, and then as the focus became less narrow and the appreciationof the native peoples interact ion with their environment greater, a further vitalstep forward was made . This has been signa lled in the language adopted . A titlesuch as Resource management in A mazonia indigenous and folk st rat gi s (Posey

Balee 1989) expresses well this shift in emphasis. In particular there is now therealisation that the Amazon forest is not the untamed wilderness of popular (andeven scientific) imagination but to a s ignifi cant extent (11.8 10 of the Brazilian terrafirme; Balee 1989: 14-15) is the result of planned native activity. The evidenceincreasingly indicates that far from being pawns of an intractable environment,native peoples have, or at least had, sophisticated techniques , of which social organization is one, for managing floral and faunal resources.

This dispute, mainly conducted between North American anthropologists, hasgone on alongside the developments in other, mainly Brazilian and European , schoolsof thought that have a more humanistic outlook. What is interesting is how littl ethese two approaches have impinged on one another An exception to t s wasa rather uninspired and artif icia lly induced debate in Current Anthropology (Ross1978). More illuminating have been the recent exchanges in the same journal between Bruce Albert (1989; 1990) and Napoleon Chagnon (1990) that suggest a chasmtoo great for a dialogue to bridge, at least for the time being.

This has not meant that the humanistic school has ignored the material worldin which the Amerindian live s. t is merely that its members ha ve taken a ratherdiffer ent line abo ut the Amerindians part in it. Perhaps one of the best examp lesof this type of work is Philippe Descola s a Nature domestique (1986 ) whichincorporates both statistical material co llected by him self together with the Achuar sown interpretations and understanding of their intentions and actions. Unfortunately, this work, in French, has as yet to make any impact on those who couldlearn most from it. Indeed it appears that Descola s work has not yet been reviewed in any of the main North American journal s l .

Descola s work is also part of a highly influential current of thought on soc ialorgani za tion that can be traced back to the mid-1970s. Jackson (1975: 319-320)had commented on the fact that there had been a serious revision about the classificati on of many Lowland So uth American societies a s unilineal, especially thosereputedly matrilineal. This applied particularly to the Go and the Guiana peop les,

reclassified as cognatic, among whom uxorilocal residence had given earlier ethnographers the spurio us impression of the presence of matrilineal descent groups.However, this was only a first step in what was to become a radical re -appraisal of


4/11

The Amerindianizalion o Kinship 509

the concept of de sce nt it self. t is diffi cu lt to identify any si ngle individual respo nsible for this although there is a number of possible contenders. The public andcollective revision was made at the symposium on Social time and social spaceat the International Congress of Americanists held in Paris in 1976 (Overing Kaplan,ed., 1977). Here a number of speakers questioned the value of descent asthe term had become generally to be understood in anthropology. Perhaps oneof the most succinct was Irving Goldman who, deploring the lack of an adequatetheory of descent, insisted that such a theory must be rooted in an understandingof the native theory of descent, that is, of the generative process (Goldman1977: 182).

Although that conference is widely considered to mark a watershed in Lowland

South American anthropology and was the public expression of a general intellectualambience, one can point to other contemporary works that contributed to the samemovement. For example, Roberto Da Matta (1976) pointed to the social as opposedto the biological component of descent among the Apinaye. He later (1979) wentfurther and proposed that continuity among the Northern Go is achieved by

sub st itution rather than de sc e nt because it occurs between the living andrequires little depth of genealogical knowledge. At about the same time, RobertMurphy (1979) queried whether it was wise to import from other areas classicalnotions of lineage and lineality that did not seem to fit the South American case. twas the publication of A Constru,ao da pessoa nas sociedades indigenasbrasileiras (Seeger el al 1979) that proved decisively influent ial. These authorsrejected what they labelled as the African model with its emphasis on the definitionof groups and the transmission of goo ds and offices, and went on to make somepositive proposal s . They argued that, in Lowland South America, societies arestructured in terms of the symbolic idiom s (names, essences, etc.) that relate tothe construction of the person and the fabrication of the body. This set of idea shas been very influential, although one suspects that its full impact has been lo stbecause not only that work but much of the resulting literature has been publishedonly in Portuguese. An exception to this is Seeger's 98 monograph on theSuya. Of similar merit are Manuela Carneiro da Cunha's Os Morlos e os oulros(1978) and Eduardo Viveiros de Castro's Arawele (1986) in which the importanceof dea th and of cannibalism as basis for a theory of the person is explored atlength 2

However, the problem of descent and lineality has failed to go completelyaway-especially as far as the Go are concerned. Nimuendaju had reported matrilineal groups among the Northern Go, and although attempts have been made toexplain how he made such a mistake , some ethnographers have been reluctant totallyto reject his claim. Thus William Crocker (1979), for example, hypothesised thatthe Canela, even if they no longer had matrilineages, had had them in thepast. Christopher Crocke r, although he went to some lengths to show that theBororo are not matrilineal, still found him self writing that the Bororo can beconsidered as functionally but not ideologically matrilineal J .-C. Crocker 1985:32). The whole question has been recently and exhaustively re-examined by VanessaLea (1986) who insists that the Kayap6 legitimise a Ho u se's ownership by ofnames and prerogatives nekretsj in terms of uterine de scent that may be traced


5/11

510 P E T E R R I V I E R E

back as many as seve n generations. Indeed she argues that to deny the Kayap6hav e any notion of de sce nt because their notion doe s not resemble that classicallydefined i s to t hrow out the baby with the bathwater ibid.: 399).

Lea 's point is well made for there seems to be a problem of langu age and inour efforts to rid ourselves of the unwanted connotations that cling to descent,we have left ourselves speechless. t is true that the imagery associated with ourword descent , the idea of de scen ding generations that continually move downand away from some ancestor is in most cases alien to native Lowland SouthAmericans who use different forms of representation. A good example of thi sare the Ca nela who repre sent the idea of de sce nt in te rm s of the sweet potato vinewith each new potato figuring a more distant female descendant. De sce nt isthe horizontal spread of the vines (i.e . , mat rilines) away from the central plant(W. H. Crocke r 1990: 266-267). A more radically different idea i s found amongthe Barasana who represent the succession of generations as leave s piling up onthe forest floor and employ ritual means to keep in contact with their origins(S. Hugh-Jone s 977: 209). At the sa me time, Christine Hugh-Jon es (1979) ha sshown how th e Barasana idea s of descent involve two component s: a onegenerational cycle associated with male bone and seme n and female flesh and blood,and a two-generational cycle involvin g the inheri ta nce of patrilineal names. Amongthe Gt;, as well as the shared substan ce of kinship, there are social units reproducedby mean s that are overtly non-genealogical: the transmission of name- sets. In thecase of the Kayap6, it is the consistent tran sfe r of names and prerogative s acrossseveral generations of mothers brothers to sisters so ns that gives this socie ty thematrilineal co louration of which Lea writes. Christopher Crocker (1985: 32) isclear that as far as the Bororo are concerned, they do not regard m emb ers of thesa me clan a s blood relati ves; rath er membership is ba sed on other share d qualities,refracti o ns of the group's totemic essence. Even so this does not mean that bloodrelationships are unimportant for the y are , in both the uterine and agnaticlines. Thu s while the Bororo organize themselves through two relationships systems,these are integrated in a variety of ways. For example, the mode of tran smittingnames , ownership of which bestows membership in corporate groups, is based ongenealogical relationship. On the ot her hand, in Guiana the absence of social

formation s means that kin ship i s more exclusively the idiomof

socia l relation ship sand shared sub sta nce the idiom of kinship. Thus, it would seem tha t, afte r all ,everywhere in Lowland South Amer ica, genealogy , real or clas sificator y and however shallow, influences the transmission of properties , whatever they may be .

An excessive concern with definitions is not very productive and we should lookfor other ways in which to de scr ibe what is there. Lea (1986) has made a usefulproposal. In grappling with the intricacies of Kayap6 soc ial organization she cameto appreciate that t is the House , as the owner of names and preroga t ive s, thatis the significa nt unit in socie tal con tinuity. t would appear that it wa s only aftershe had reac hed thi s conclu sion that she became acq uainted with Levi -Strauss sconcept of societes t mai son . This notion of House has allowed her to look

again at the difficult problem of the nature of the socia l units (dome stic clusters)that are located in the residence s that encircle Gt; village. The problem ha s beenthat these units are not corporate groups , at least in the usual anthropological


6/11

The merindianization o Kinship 511

sense of the term which almost invariably implies unilineal descent. However, Leahas used the notion of House as moral person to good effect in explaining thenature of these institutions as the units that transmit names and prerogative s .Furthermore , following Levi-Strauss, she suggests that Kayapo Houses are able toaccommodate the conflicting principles of social organization that exist in thesoc iety. y putting the emphasis on the House, she also finds herself in a positionto reconsider the roles of centre and periphery, usually taken as a key feature ofGe and Bororo social organization and often associated with a series o otherdistinctions such as men and women, and public and private , with the implicationthat the second terms are inferior. In her view, this characterization is wrongbecause it is the Kayapo Houses on the periphery that own, control and transmitthe names and valuables that are vital for the reproduction of the units (moieties, etc.)that operate in the centre of the village.

t might be said that to introduce the notion of House is merely to muddy thewaters further by the addition of another ill-defined concept. I disagree with thison condition that the notion is not used too rigidly and that it has expositoryvalue. I find it s application to the Northern Go and the Bororo illuminating. Howfar it will work elsewhere in Lowland South America remains to be seen. Themeaning of the maloca in the Northwest Amazon has been extensively exploredby Christine Hugh-Jones (1979) and it is clear that here the House is an essentialelement in Tukanoan society. But these people with their shallow, patrilineal exogamous descent groups seem less in need of the House to counteract opposingprinciples. In Guiana where, as stated above, social relationships are mainlyexpressed in the idiom of kinship categories, the notion of House serves to hidethe difference between kinship and co-residence, so that coresident non-kin becomemore kinlike than non-resident kin, thu s mediating the opposition of inside andoutside. But in neither case, is the notion of House likely to elucidate as muchas it does for the Ge, where the House takes on the role of the moral personwith corporate continuity.

Alongside the question of descent there is that of affinity and to some extentthe problem here is even greater than it is wi th descent. Whereas with the latterterm, we know that we are referring to the general area of the relationship betweengenerations nd the generative process . we cannot be so certain that what h scome to be called affinity , becau se of a shadowy similarity with affinity elsewhere, necessarily concerns those related through marriage . The situation has beenworsened by the tendency to refer to spouses as affines which they are not in normalEnglish usage nor in many South American cases where they become kin as theyincreasingly participate in a common sub sta nce.

A starting point for considering this problem seems to be the concentric dualismthat is pervasive in the symbolic ordering of Lowland South American societies. Inthis scheme the inside is associated with familiarity, kin and safety, the outsidewith the other , affines and danger. Joanna Overing Kaplan, in a review article(1981), drew attention to the fact that while different societies manipulate this

distinct ion in different ways, both part s of the cosmos are everywhere equallyimportant because the universe only exists and reproduces itself through the mixingof things that are different from one another. The evidence that affinity is part


7/11

512 P T R R I V I R

of this otherness is very strong. Thus, among the Pan are the distinction betweenmarriageable and unmarriageable may be expressed in the terms piyaka andlunkonan, the literal translations of which being respectively another of the samekind and another of a differ ent kind (Henley 1982: 100-101). However, itis Albert s 1985 study of the Yanomami that has most effectively described theconcentrically constructed classification of groups, running from coresidents throughfriends and allies, enemies, potential enemies to those who re not known. Hehas further shown that these groups are distinguished not only by particular configurations of exc hanges and conflicts but also, in quantifiable terms, by the typesof mystical attack that emanate from them . The analysis is t hen taken a step furtherand it is shown how enemies, po ssible enemies and t he unknown are tied in to asyste m of reciprocal predation , my stical or actual, which is expressed through thenotion of symbolic exo-cannibali sm. The putrefaction and decay of the flesh onthe exposed corpse are seen as the consum pti on of the flesh by the predator. Thu sthe first stage of the funerary ceremo ny, the expos ure of the corpse, is linked inwith the wider set of concentric relations. The relat ionship between a given community and its allies is ritually expressed through the endo-cannibalistic consumptionof the ashes of the bones. The crucia l role in this is played by classificatory affinesof the deceased: in the first part of the funerary ritual by a coresident class ificatoryaffine , and in the second part by a non -resident classificatory affine drawn fromthe category of friends and allies. People in these positions act as hinge s that articulate between the different spheres of the Yanomami s socio-political world, and,in the course of the funeral ceremony, serve to mask such fundamental distinction sas ki n/ affines, coresidents / allies.

Th is is just one o f a series o f works that has drawn attention to the cannibaHst icimage ry to be found in many Amer indian cosmo lo gies. Although the associationof enemy, cannibal and affine is widespread, its exact configuration varies. ThusOvering (1986) has described the abstract role of the cannibal outsider among thePiaroa and shows that it is the means whereby violence is excluded from intrasett lement relationships. Thi s contrasts with the Pakaa Nova whose funerary ritualsinvolve the actual consumption of fle sh and bones by real affines (addressed a skin), who are reluctant cannibal s compared with strangers (addressed as affines)

who are avid cannibals (Vilaca 1990). Viveiros de Castro (1986) describes the roleof the canrtiba l gods in the ontology of the Arawete and more recently 1993) hasattempted to generalize a concept that arose from that work. This is what he hasca lled in Portuguese Ierceiro inc/u(do and in English, after Peirce, t hirdness . Thi s notion refer s to the widely reported presence in Lowland South Americaof roles mainly external to kinship: formal friends, trading partners, and captivesbut including the Tukanoan mother' s siste r' s child. They provide the dynamismwithin the concentric world by mediating between the same and other, the insideand out side , friend and enemy, living and dead. Above all, perhaps, it is thepotential or classificatory affine that fulfil s this role of thirdness, and why it isthat affinity, which suggests something to do with relations thruugh marriage, has

also to do with the fact or fantasy of can nibali sm.Clearly more thought will have to be given to this idea of thirdne ss , but it sidentification offers some new avenues to exp lore. For some years t h s been


8/11

The merindianizalion o Kinship 513

apparent that Amazonian affinity presents problems and various terms (such asaffinability ) have been coined in order to try and cope with the difficulties. In

practice, most of these seem to have been introduced in order to protect the integrityof the dualistic structure of the so-called Dravidian terminologies. The recognitiono a third term or the ternary nature o many terminologies offers a possibleescape from the Indologist model (in my own view, nothing has been or is to begained by referring to Amazonian terminologies as Dravidian) in the same way

s the Africanist models o descent have been found wanting. Furthermore, andthis is perhaps the important thing, the existence of the third term as a mode ofarticulation in a concentric dualistic structure is perfectly consistent with thegenerative process that we call descent .

This returns us to the beginning of this discussion on affinity, and the fact thatcreativity comes from the mixjng of two unlike things which are potentially dangerousto one another. There is here what Viveiros de Castro (1993) has dubbed the

symbolic economy of predation . The relation of this symbolic economy tothe other Amerindian economies is best stated in this words (my translation):

The relations o predation hierarchically encompass the relations o production. Thismeans that an economy o symbolic exchanges, linked to the creation and destructiono human components [ circumscribes and determines the political economy omarriage and o the allocation o productive resources, a dimension which becomesa specific incidence o the global order o cannibalistic sociality. The simplistic

conception o marriage exchange s involving the distribution, circulation and controlo individuals (classically women) must give way to a shrewder consideration o thesymbolic attributes and properties which circulate, not only in marriage but also inthe general order o an assumed predation (Viveiros de Castro Carneiro da Cunha,1993).

In other words the widest social world of the Amerindian is not predicated onthe narrow-range exchanges of spouses and things but on symbolic exchanges whicheven incorporate unknown people . Clearly there is here an idea of some considerable power and there is much evidence to support it although I would query whetherthis exchange has to us the symbolism of predation. There is one recent work

which seems to suggestthat

an opposite concept might also bean

appropriatepredicate for such a schema. This is Fernando Santos Granero's study (1991) ofthe Amuesha among whom it is the relations of love that hierarchically encompassall other relationships and give legitimation to them. This is not to say thatcannibalistic ideas are absent, but the Amuesha associate them with the relativelynarrow range influence of the shamans rather than the wide-ranging moral influenceof their priests.

Love or violence, the proposed scheme of far-ranging symbolic exchanges incorporating unknown people, has obvious importance for the study of social organization. The focus of much work has reflected what is often the natives' own viewof their social world, consisting of the community and a handful of neighbouring

communities, although ethnographers have realised that this ideal isolation andautonomy are, in practice, unachievable. What has been missing is the wider viewwhereby societal reproduction does not depend on the production and exchange


9/11

514 P E T E R R I V I E R E

of visible and material items but on invisible but no less real events. The assumedcannibalistic consumption by an outsider of the putrefying Yanomami corpse isno less important than a visible birth for the continuity of society.

I have dealt but only superficially with the Arnerindianization of two key termsin social organization. More space would allow for the consideration of a similarprocess with other concepts: hierarchy gender property postmarital residence forexample. One crucial lesson that has emerged from all this work is that socialorganization is inseparable from culture; even to express it in these terms may bemisleading since it suggests that they may be potentially separable . In LowlandSouth America at least all the evidence points in the opposite direction.

Finally and although it is not in my remit to propose or predict where futurestudies should lie the way now seems clear for a genuine comparative approachto Lowland South American sociocultural phenomena. This does not mean thatwe have all the analytical tools at hand but rather it is only through comparativestudies that appropriate tools can be identified and honed . t s ys little for Westernthought that it has taken 500 years to begin to discover what we have destroyed.

Institute of Social and Cultural Anthropology, Oxford University

NOT S

1. It is to be hoped that this situation will improve with the publication of lhe English translationcurrently in preparation for Cambridge University Press.

2. A revised and shortened version of this work is now available in English (VIVEIROS DE CASTRO1992). At the time of writing I have had not the chance to see it .

B I B L IO G R P H Y

ALBERT. Bruce

1985 Temps du sang, temps des cendres. Representation de 1 rna/odie, systeme riluel et espace politiquechez les Yanomami du s u d s t Amazonie bresilienne . These. Universite de Paris X.

1989 Yanomami 'Violence': Inclusive Fitness or Ethnographer's Representation? , CurrentAnthropology 30 (5): 637 -640.

1990 On Yanomami Warfare: Rejoinder , Current Anthropology 31 (5): 558-563.

BALEE w.

1989 The Culture of Amazonian Forests , in D . A. POSEY W. BALEE cds., 1989: 1-21.

CARNEIRO DA C UNHA Manuela1978 s Mortos e os oulros. Uma amilise do sistema funerario e da n o ~ ode pessoa entre os

Indios Krah6. Sao Paulo, Editora Hucitec.

CHAGNON Napoleon1990 On Yanomamo Violence: Reply to Albert , Current Anthropology 31 I): 49-53 .

CROCKER Jon Christopher1985 Vital Souls: Bororo Cosmology, Natural Symbolism, and Shamanism. Tucson, University

of Arizona Press.


10/11

The Amerindianization o f Kinship 515

CROCKER, William H.1979 CaneJa kinship and the Question of matrilineality . in M. L. MARGOLIS W. E. CARTER,

eds., Brazil Anthropological Perspectives. New York. Columbia University Press: 225-249.1990 The Canela Eastern Timbira). I: An Ethnographic Tntroduction. Washington, D.C . , Smith

sonian Institution Press ( Smith so nian Contributions to Anthropology 33).

DA MArrA, Roberto976 Urn Mundo dividido: a estrutura social dos indios Apinaye. Petr6polis, Editora Vozes.

1979 The Apinaye Relationship System: Terminology and Ideology , in D. MAYB URY-LEWIS, ed.,Dialectical Societies: The e and Bororo o Central Brazil, I. Cambridge, Mass., HarvardUniversity Pres s: 83 -127 .

DE SCOLA, Philippe986 La Nature domestique. Symbolisme et praxis dans ree gie des Achuar. (Publie avec l'aide

dela Fondation

Singer-Polignac.) Paris, Ed.de

la Maison de s Sciences del 'Homme

.GOLDMAN, Irving

1977 Time, space, and descent: the Cubeo example , in J. OVERING KAPLAN, ed., 1977: 175-183.

HENLEY, Paul982 The Panare. Tradition and Change on the Amazonian Frontier. New Haven London.

Yale University Press.

HUGH -JONES. Christine979 From the Milk River: Spatial and Temporal Processes in Northwest Amazonia. Cambridge .

Cambridge University Press. 2e ed. 1988.)

HUGH-JO NES, Stephen1977 Like the Leaves on the Forest Floor. Space and time in Barasana Ritual . in J. OVERING

KAPLAN, cd., 1977: 105-215.

JACKSON, Jean

1975 Recent et hnograph y of indigenous Northern Lowland South America , Annuel Review o fAnthropology 4: 307-340 .

LEA, Vanessa9 86 Nomes e nekrets kayap6. Uma conceprao de riqueza. These de Doctorat. Rio de Janeiro ,

Mu sco Nacional.

MURPHY, Robert F.1979 Lineage and Lineality in Lowland South America , in M. L. MARGOLIS W. E. CARTER,

eds., Brazil. Anthropological Perspectives. New York, Columbia Univers ity Pres s: 217-224.

OVERING. Joanna

1986 Images of Cannibalism, Death and Domination in a 'Non-Violent' society , in D. RICHES,ed., The Anthropology of Violence. Oxford. Basil Blackwell: 86-102.

OVERING KAPLAN, Joanna1977 Social Time and Social Space in Lowland South America , in J. OVERING KAPLAN, ed., 1977.1981 Review Article: Amazonian Anthropology , Journal o f Latin American Studies 13: 51-65.

OVERI N KAPLAN, Joanna, ed.977 Actes du XLlle Congres international des Americanistes, 2. Paris, Societe des Americanistes.

POSEY, D. A. W. BALfE, eds.989 Resource Management in Amazonia: Indigenous and Folk Strategies. Bronx, NY, New York

Botanical Garden ( Advances in Economic Botany 7).

Ro ss , Eric Barr y1978 Food Taboos, Diet and Hunting Strategy: The Adaptation to Animals in Amazon C ultural

Ecology , Current Anthropology 19 l): 1-36.


11/11

516 P T R R I V I R

SANTOS GRANERO, Fernando99 The Power 0/ Love. The Moral Use 0 / Knowledge amongst the Amuesha oj Central

Perno London Atlantic Highlands, NJ, The Athlone Press ( London School of EconomicsMonographs on Social Anthropology 62). [Voir compte rendu par F.-M. RENARD-CASEVITZ,pp. 566-567.J

SEEGER Anthony98 Nature and Society in Central Brazil: The Suyd Indian s 0 / Mato Grosso. Cambridge, Ma ss. ,

Harvard Unive rsity Press ( Harvard St udi es in Cultural Anthropology 4). [Voi r compterendu par urore BE CQ UELIN dans L Homme 9 : 191-192.]

SEEGER, A n t h o n y, Roberto DA MATTA Eduardo B . VIVEIRO S DE CASTRO1979 A Construr;ao da pessoa na s s ociedades indigenas brasileiras , Bo/etirn do Museu Nocional,

Antropologia 32: 2-19. Rio de Jane iro.V I L A ~ AAparecida

1990 0 Canibalismo funerdrio Pakaa Nova: uma etnografia. Rio de Janeiro, Programa de P6sgradua93.0 em Antropologia Socia l do Museu Nacional ( Comunica9ao 19) .

VIVEIROS DE CASTRO Eduardo986 Arawete: os deuses canibais. Rio de Janeiro, Jorge Zahar Ed.992 From the Enemy s point of view . Humanity and Divinity in an Amazonian Society. Chicago,

Chicago University Press.1993 Alguns aspectos da afinade no dravidianato amazonico , in E . VIVEIROS DE CASTRO

M . CARNEIRO DA CUNHA eds., Amazonia: etnologia e hist6ria indlgena. Sao Paulo, Nucleode Hist6ria Indfgena/Universidade de Sao Paulo (USP).

riviere - the amerindianization of descent and affinity.pdf

Documents