Kinship Networks and Demography

1. Kinship Networks and Demography Douglas R. White University of California – Irvine With James Moody The Ohio State University Population Association of America Minneapolis Minnesota, May 1 - 3

2. Kinship Networks and Demography Outline • Introduction: Social Demography and Network Concepts • A Network Approach to Marriage Rules and Strategies via Controlled Demographic Simulation • Representing Kinship as A Network: P-graphs • Case Study Examples • Possible Extensions

3. Introduction: some questions of interest 1 What is the influence of demography on social structure and the reverse? 2 How does one measure the demography of marriage and network behaviors in human populations? 3 What is the influence of social structure on such behaviors? • For this purpose “social structure” is the network of social bonds among people and with things to which people have significant links (property, ideas, material and ecological items). • Some aspects of social institutions are implied or included in this definition insofar as they are an emergent result of social/legal/political bonds and of responses to demographic pressures.

4. Structural demography might include: • The social field of kinship as the place of (social) reproduction in which structural endogamies define the reproductive boundaries of social class, ethnic identities, kinship groups, and so forth. • The social field of groups, in which cohesion and coordinated social action emerges within social networks and connectivities define the limits of cooperation and competition • The social field of stratification in which groups (or individuals) are situated (i.e. occupy structural positions) and centralities define inequalities among individuals and groups within social networks.

5. The importance of measurement concepts in structural demography • Concepts such as structural endogamy, multiconnectivity, and centrality, when applied to large scale (community/nation) networks allows the possibility of a social network approach to questions about: • longitudinal and historical studies of entire large populations • social studies on norms and behavior • studies of the relation between the structural positions of individuals and their behavior • relationships between social structure and demographic variables

6. Example: Analyzing cohesion in social groups(Cohesive Blocking): Cohesion is measured by the number of node-independent paths that hold two nodes together. Two nodes with k node-independent paths are k times as resistant to being pulled apart than if they are connected by a single path. A k-component of a graph, or a maximal subgraph that is k-connected (also called a cohesive block of connectivity k), is a maximal subgraph S in which no pair of nodes can be disconnected by removal of k or fewer other nodes in S. The 1-, 2-, and 3-components of a graph G are called, respectively, components, bicomponentsand tricomponents of G. Menger’sTheorem: The minimum node cut set (connectivity) of a graph G equals the minimum of the maximum node-independent paths (cohesion) between any two nodes in G. This is one of the deepest theorems in graph theory. If the edges of a graph (network) are weighted (e.g., at unity), the node-independent flow between two nodes is the sum over node-independent paths of minimum weights on these paths. E.g., node-independent flow of 2 between a & b: a b (the graph is 2-connected)

7. Cohesion via multiple independent paths • The cohesion of a graph G is independent of path distances between nodes, and is in this sense a distributed property of G. • Why do we expect that multiple independent paths, independent of distances among nodes, will have important effects above and beyond proximal and highly distance-dependant effects of interaction? • Briefly, independent of distance: (a) Two nodes with k node-independent paths are k times asresistant to being pulled apart than if they are connected by a single path, and (b) The effects of k node-independent paths within cohesive blocks are convergentand their effects may thus be self reinforcing. The higher the connectivity k, the more cohesive blocks are redundantly connected (solidary) in this way, and the greater their potential to act as amplifiers for coherent patterns of organization. • This concept is useful for generating hypotheses relating to social networks generally and to kinship networks in particular.

8. Applications of Structural Cohesion • Emergence and Fission of Groups in Social Networks • Elite and Class Cohesion • Community/Ethnic Cohesion • “The Cohesiveness of Blocks in Social Networks: Node Connectivity and Conditional Density” (drw and Frank Harary). 2001. Sociological Methodology 2001, vol. 31, no. 1, pp. 305-359 • “Social Cohesion and Embeddedness: A hierarchical conception of social groups” (Moody and White). 2003. American Sociological Review 68(1):101-24.

9. Controlled Demographic Simulation: A Network Approach to Discovering Marriage Rules and Strategies • In a quantitative science of social structure that includes marriage and kinship, how does one: • define and evaluate marriage strategies relative to random baselines? • separate ‘randomizing’ strategy from ‘preferential’ strategy? • detect atomistic strategies (partial, selective) as well as global or “elementary” marriage-rules or strategies? “Controlled Simulation of Marriage Systems,” 1999. Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation 3(2). White

10. Defining the phenomena of endogamy: • Endogamy is the custom of marrying only within the limits of a clan or tribe. • Practical Strategies: • By categories/attributes: • suffers from problems of specification error • By network relinking: • the generalized phenomena of structural endogamyas blocks of generalized relinking, (a special case of network cohesion) with: • Subblocks of k-relinkings of k families, with g-depth in generations • Subblocks of consanguinal (blood) marriage as within-family relinkings

11. Data and Representation:Building Kinship Networks • To analyze large-scale kinship networks, we need a generalizable graph representation of kinship networks. • Problems: • Cultural definitions of “kin” lead to cross-cultural ambiguity • Forced to pick ‘primary’ relations (marriage, descent) against ‘implied’ relations (siblings, cousins, etc.) or include a complete graph with multiple labeling

12. Data and Representation:Building Kinship Networks The traditional representation is a genealogical kinship graph • Individuals are nodes • Males and females have different shapes • Edges are of two forms: • Marriage (usually a horizontal, double line) • Descent (vertical single line) • Has a western bias toward individuals as the key actor • Not a valid network, since edges emerge from dyads • Better solution is the P-graph

13. Treating couplings as nodes • Treating individuals as lines • Usually of different type for different genders Data and Representation:Building Kinship Networks P-graphs link pairs of parents (flexible & culturally defined) to their decedents P-graphs are constructed by:

14. Data and Representation:Building Kinship Networks P-graphs link pairs of parents (flexible & culturally defined) to their decedents P-graphs can be constructed from standard genealogical data files (.GED), using PAJEK and a number of other programs. See:http://eclectic.ss.uci.edu/~drwhite for guides as to web-site availability with documentation (& multimedia representations)

15. Data and Representation:Relating p-graphs to endogamy • Cycles in p-graphs are direct markers for endogamy, and satisfy the elementary requirements for theories of kinship-based alliances (Levi-Strauss (1969, Bourdieu 1976): • Circuits in the p-graph are isomorphic with one or more of: • Blood Marriages, where two persons of common ancestry from a new union • Redoublement d’alliance, where unions linking two co-ancestral lines are redoubled • Renchainement, where to or more intermarried co-ancestral lines are relinked by a new union

16. Lot & his Wives Male Decent Female Decent Same person (polygamy) Data and Representation:Relating p-graphs to endogamy

17. Programs & Availability PAJEK • PAJEK reads genealogical datasets (*.ged files) both the usual Ego format and in Pgraph format, with dotted female lines (p Dots) and solid male lines. • PAJEK Network/Partition/Components/Bicomponent computes structural endogamy • PAJEK Network/Partition/Depth/Genealogy computes genealogical depth. This enabled 2D or 3D drawings of kinship networks. • Manuals for p-graph kinship analysis and discussions of software programs & multimedia representations are contained in • 1) “Analyzing Large Kinship and Marriage Networks with pgraph and Pajek,” Social Science Computer Review 17(3):245-274. 1999 Douglas R. White, Vladimir Batagelj & Andrej Mrvar. • 2) http://eclectic.ss.uci.edu/pgraph • 3) http://vlado.fmf.uni-lj.si/pub/networks/pajek

18. Programs & Availability Hypothesis testing We can use various permutation-based procedures to test the observed level of endogamy against a data-realistic random baseline. The substantive marker for endogamic effectiveness is whether the level of endogamy is (a) greater than expected by chance given (b) the genealogical depth of the graph 1997 Structural Endogamy and the graphe de parenté. Mathématique, Informatique et sciences humaines 137:107-125. Paris: Ecole des Hautes Etudes en Sciences Sociales

19. Applications of Structural Endogamy Social Class • Social class as “a general way of life, a sub-culture, tends to be hereditary because (a) individuals from the same sub-culture tend to intermarry, and (b) parents bring up their children to imitate themselves.” (Leach, 1970). • If we were to examine the extent to which particular social class formations were concomitant with structural endogamy, we would expect that: • Families involved would know "good families“ and "suitable matches,“ • not all children of the class would be "required" to marry within the class, but social class inscription would take place through the diffuse agency of relinking by marriage, • which could both validate the social standing of the individual and constitute the diffuse but relinked social unit -- endogamic block -- of class formation.

20. Applications of Structural Endogamy Social Class: Carinthian Farmers Class is rooted in relations to property, but the holding of property is particularistic, bound by social relations that channel its inheritance within particular sets of personal biographies, such as those linked by kinship and marriage. As property flows through a social network, its biography unfolds as a history of the transfer from person to person or group to group. (p.162) Institutions (such as class), emerge out of the networks actions and choices devolving in turn in specific and changing historical context. A duality of persons and property, each linked through the others, thus characterizes the class system. Source: 1997 “Class, Property and Structural Endogamy: Visualizing Networked Histories,” Theory and Society 25:161-208. Lilyan Brudner and Douglas White

21. Applications of Structural Endogamy Social Class: Carinthian Farmers • Empirical setting: Inheritance of property among families in an Austrian Village • Background: In the Austrian farming valleys of southern Carinthia, the perpetuation of Slovenian ethnicities and Windisch dialects has been associated with heirship of farmsteads. Unlike many rural areas (and as predicted by Weber and others), farms tended to be inherited complete, without the kind of splitting that fractures classes. • Main hypothesis: The two social classes emerged historically in this village and have long remained distinct as a product of differential marriage strategies. • The mechanism for keeping land intact is that a structurally endogamous farmstead-owner social class emerged from marriages that relinked stem family or heirship lines that were already intermarried. The relinked couples inheriting farmsteads recombined primary heirships with secondary quitclaim land parcels making from some stability in reconstituting “impartible-core” farmsteads. Source: 1997 “Class, Property and Structural Endogamy: Visualizing Networked Histories,” Theory and Society 25:161-208. Lilyan Brudner and Douglas White

22. Applications of Structural Endogamy Social Class: Carinthian Farmers • Data: • Extensive field work • Archival: Records of farmstead transfers starting in the 16th century • Genealogical histories on families collected by Brudner • Supplemented from data collected by White from gravestones and church records • Facts about the setting: • Village population has been (relatively) stable from 1759 – 1961, fluctuating between 618 (1923) to 720 (1821) • Most transfers are through inheritance, but the data includes purchases as well. • Daughters tend to move to their husbands house of residence • Purchase of farmsteads for sons is common, but rare for daughters • Daughters tend to bring a land dowry to a marriage Source: 1997 “Class, Property and Structural Endogamy: Visualizing Networked Histories,” Theory and Society 25:161-208. Lilyan Brudner and Douglas White

23. Applications of Structural Endogamy Social Class: Carinthian Farmers Source: 1997 “Class, Property and Structural Endogamy: Visualizing Networked Histories,” Theory and Society 25:161-208. Lilyan Brudner and Douglas White

24. Applications of Structural Endogamy Social Class: Carinthian Farmers Source: 1997 “Class, Property and Structural Endogamy: Visualizing Networked Histories,” Theory and Society 25:161-208. Lilyan Brudner and Douglas White

25. Applications of Structural Endogamy Social Class: Carinthian Farmers Source: 1997 “Class, Property and Structural Endogamy: Visualizing Networked Histories,” Theory and Society 25:161-208. Lilyan Brudner and Douglas White

26. Applications of Structural Endogamy Social Class Source: 1997 “Class, Property and Structural Endogamy: Visualizing Networked Histories,” Theory and Society 25:161-208. Lilyan Brudner and Douglas White

27. Applications of Structural Endogamy Elite Structural Endogamy: Rural Javanese Elites Empirical Setting: Muslim village elites have their own compounds and extensive landholdings that qualify them for village leadership. They often marry blood relatives, commoners do not. Key questions: Javanese peasant villages are often characterized as a ‘loose’ social structure. Is the blood-marriage endogamy we see among village elites simply due to the very restricted size of the elite group, with the elites and commoners sharing the same ‘loose’ rules of marriage? Data: Extensive field work, genealogies and ethnography by Thomas Schweizer

28. Applications of Structural Endogamy Elite Structural Endogamy: Rural Javanese Elites • Results: • Apparent differences in marriage patterns of elites and commoners were due to a common cultural practice of status endogamy, which for elites implied a set of potential mates whose smaller size implied marriage among blood relatives within a few generations. • Given a common rule of division of inheritance, closer marital relinkings among elites facilitated the reconsolidation of wealth within extended families • Extended families so constituted operated with a definite set of rules for the division of productive resources so as to distribute access to mercantile as well as landed resources. • Graphic technique: Nuclear families as the unit of p-graph analysis, additional arrows for property flows, and extended family as constituted by marital relinking and the repartitioning of mercantile and properties resources. • Source: 1998 “Kinship, Property and Stratification in Rural Java: A Network Analysis” (White and Schweizer). pp. 36-58, In, Thomas Schweizer and Douglas White, eds. Kinship, Networks, and Exchange. Cambridge University Press.

29. Applications of Structural Endogamy Social Integration through Marriage Systems: Kandyan Irrigation Farmers in Sri Lanka Empirical Setting: An immensely detailed network ethnography by Sir Edmund Leach demonstrates how kinship relations are strategically constructed through matrimonial alliances that alter the flow of inheritance of land and water rights by deviating from normal agnatic rights to property and emphasizing the secondary rights of daughters, with expectation that property alienated through marriage will flow back to the agnatic group through the completion of elaborate marriage exchanges between the two “sides” of the kindred. Key question: Is there a hidden order of marital practices that links to the two-sidedness of kinship terminology and Leach’s earlier findings about balanced and reciprocated exchanges> Data: genealogies, inheritances, classifications of normal and exceptional residence practices and of normal and exceptional types of marriage. Source: 1998 “Network Mediation of Exchange Structures: Ambilateral Sidedness and Property Flows in Pul Eliya, Sri Lanka” (Houseman and White). pp. 59-89, In, Thomas Schweizer and drw, eds. Kinship, Networks, and Exchange. CUP.

30. Applications of Structural Endogamy Social Integration through Marriage Systems: Kandyan Irrigation Farmers in Sri Lanka • Results: Reveals that Leach had not seen, and could not for lack of requisite tools of analysis, that marriages were organized in response to a logic that the authors call dividedness and in another form sidedness: invisible to the untrained eye, the matrimonial network is bipartite, the marriages of the parents and those of the children divide themselves into two distinct ensembles (which have nothing to do with moieties)” • Graphic technique: Nuclear families as the unit of p-graph analysis, analysis of blood marriages, sibling sets and of inheritance or bequests revealed the underlying logic of marital sidedness. • Key concepts: bipartite graph and sidedness: sidedness -- anempirical bipartition of a matrimonial network, reiterated from one generation to another following a sexual criterion. The next slide the sidedness of the Pul Eliyan networks operating through the male line, with some female heirs acting as agnatic channels for inheritance where there are no male heirs (I.e., they lack brothers). Source: 1998 “Network Mediation of Exchange Structures: Ambilateral Sidedness and Property Flows in Pul Eliya, Sri Lanka” (Houseman and White). pp. 59-89, In, Thomas Schweizer and drw, eds. Kinship, Networks, and Exchange. CUP.

31. P-graph of Pul Eliyan Sidedness

32. Jim – you could scan page 70 of the book I sent you if it would help The slide that follows shows how sidedness was discovered by controlled simulation methods

33. Frequencies of Actual versus Simulated Consanguineal Marriages for Pul Eliya, Sri Lanka. Conclusions: All blood marriages are patri-sided, and secondarily, only MBD is a marriage that is especially preferred Type Actual Simul Total Total Fisher|-----Blood Marriage------| (2)Viri-Sided? of Mar. Freq. Freq. Actual Simul Exact type P-graph notation Actual Simul 12: 5 0 40 38 p=.042 MBD(1)GF=FG yes 2: 3 1 39 40 .317 FZD GG=FF yes 1: 0 1 56 57 .508 FZ GG=F no 3: 0 1 6 6 .538 FFFZDSD GGGG=FGFF no 4: 1 0 3 1 .800 FFMZDSSD GGGF=FGGFF yes 5: 0 1 5 3 .444 FFMBDSDD GGGF=FFGFG no 6: 1 0 18 15 .558 FMBSD GGF=FGG yes 7: 0 1 17 12 .433 FMBDD GGF=FFG no 8: 2 1 18 12 .661 FMZDD GGF=FFF yes 9: 0 1 9 5 .399 FMMBSSD GGFF=FGGG no 10: 0 1 4 5 .600 FMMFZSSD GGFFG=FGGF yes 11: 0 1 6 3 .400 FMMFZDSD GGFFG=FGFF yes 13: 0 1 25 27 .528 MBSD GF=FGG yes 14: 1 0 14 10 .600 MFZDD GFG=FFF yes 15: 1 0 7 3 .727 MFFZDSSD GFGG=FGGFF yes 16: 1 0 8 4 .692 MFFZDSD GFGG=FGFF yes 17: 1 0 8 2 .818 MFMBDSSD GFGF=FGGFG yes 18: 1 0 9 3 .769 MFMBDD GFGF=FFG yes 19: 1 0 3 0 1.000 MFMBDDDD GFGF=FFFFG yes 20: 1 0 8 2 .818 MFMFZSSD GFGFG=FGGF yes 21: 1 0 3 0 1.000 MFMFZDDD GFGFG=FFFF yes 22: 1 0 13 8 .636 MMZSSD GFF=FGGF yes 23: 1 0 15 13 .551 MMBDD GFF=FFG yes 24: 0 1 11 5 .352 MMZSDD GFF=FFGF no 25: 0 1 11 5 .352 MMBDDD GFF=FFFG no 26: 1 0 11 4 .749 MMZDDD GFF=FFFF yes Source: 1998 “Network Mediation of Exchange Structures: Ambilateral Sidedness and Property Flows in Pul Eliya, Sri Lanka” (Houseman and White). pp. 59-89, In, Thomas Schweizer and drw, eds. Kinship, Networks, and Exchange. CUP.

34. Correlating Actual versus Simulated non-MBD marriages for Pul Eliya, showing tendency towards a Viri-Sided (Dravidian) Marriage Rule Viri-Sided Unsided Actual 18 0 Simulated 5 7 (p=.0004;p=.000004 using the binomial test of 50%:50% expected) Source: 1998 “Network Mediation of Exchange Structures: Ambilateral Sidedness and Property Flows in Pul Eliya, Sri Lanka” (Houseman and White). pp. 59-89, In, Thomas Schweizer and drw, eds. Kinship, Networks, and Exchange. CUP.

35. Correlating Balanced vs. Unbalanced Cycles in Actual versus Simulated marriage networks for Pul Eliya, showing a perfectly Sided (Dravidian) Marriage Rule A. Viri-sidedness Actual Expected Balanced Cycles (Even length) 25 17.5 Unbalanced Cycles (Odd Length) 10 17.5 p=.008 (all exceptions involve relinkings between nonconsanguineal relatives) B. Amblilateral-sidedness (women‘s sidedness adjusted by inheritance rules) Actual Expected Balanced Cycles (Even length) 35 17.5 Unbalanced Cycles (Odd Length) 0 17.5 p=.00000000003 Source: 1998 “Network Mediation of Exchange Structures: Ambilateral Sidedness and Property Flows in Pul Eliya, Sri Lanka” (Houseman and White). pp. 59-89, In, Thomas Schweizer and drw, eds. Kinship, Networks, and Exchange. CUP.

36. Applications of Structural Endogamy A Turkish Nomadic Clan as prototype of Middle Eastern segmented lineage systems: The Role of Marital Cohesion Empirical Setting: An Arabized nomadic clan having the characteristic segmented patrilineages, lineage endogamy, and FBD (father’s brother’s daughter) marriages Key questions: Is this a prototype of a widespread variety of decentralized self-organizing lineage system stemming Arab societies or societies Arabized along with the spread of Islam in 7th and 8th century Caliphates the societies? Data:Genealogies on two thousand clan members and their ancestors, from 1800 to the present, a long-term ethnography by Professor Ulla C. Johansen, University of Cologne

37. Applications of Structural Endogamy A Turkish Nomadic Clan as prototype of Middle Eastern segmented lineage systems: The Role of Marital Cohesion Sources: 2002 Ulla Johansen and Douglas R. White, Collaborative Long-Term Ethnography And Longitudinal Social Analysis of a Nomadic Clan In Southeastern Turkey, pp. 81-99, Chronicling Cultures: Long-Term Field Research in Anthropology, eds. R. van Kemper and A. Royce. AltaMira Press. 2003 Douglas R. White and Michael Houseman The Navigability of Strong Ties: Small Worlds, Tie Strength and Network Topology, Complexity 8(1). 2003 Douglas R. White and Ulla Johansen. Network Analysis and Ethnographic Problems: Process Models of a Turkish Nomad Clan. Lexington and AltaMira. In Press. the next slide is produced as a Pajek image putting generations into the vertical axis and scaling cohesion on the horizontal plane of the figure (smaller nodes are receeding on the horizon)

38. Applications of Structural Endogamy A Turkish Nomadic Clan as prototype of Middle Eastern segmented lineage systems: The Role of Marital Cohesion p-graph of the conicality of the nomad clan Data:

39. Applications of Structural Endogamy A Turkish Nomadic Clan as prototype of Middle Eastern segmented lineage systems: The Role of Marital Cohesion Structural Endogamy of the nomad clan Results: • The index of relinking of a kinship graph is measure of the extent to which marriages take place among descendents of a limited set of ancestors. For the nomad clan genealogies index of relinking is 75%, which is extremely high by world standards. • This is a picture of the structurally endogamous or relinked marriages within the nomad clan (nearly 75% or all marriages):

40. Applications of Structural Endogamy A Turkish Nomadic Clan as prototype of Middle Eastern segmented lineage systems: The Role of Marital Cohesion Does staying together as a clan depend on marital relinking? Results: Testing the hypothesis for stayers versus leavers Relinked Non-Relinking Marriages Marriages Totals villagers who became clan members 2** 1** 3 clan Husband and Wife 148 0 148 “ Hu married to tribes with reciprocal exchange 12 14 26 “ Hu left for village life 13 23 36 “ Hu married to village wife (34) or husband (1) 11 24 35 “ Hu married to tribes w/out reciprocal exchange 2 12 5 “ members who left for another tribe 0 8 8 villagers not joined to clan 1 3** 4 * tribes **non-clan by origin Totals 189 85 274 Pearson’s coefficientr=.95 without middle cells

41. # of Types # of Couples A power-law decay of marriage frequencies with kinship distance (power law preferential curve) Raw frequency FFZSD FFBSD:10-11 FZD:14 MBD:16 FBD:31 M M =206/x2 Applications of Structural Endogamy A Turkish Nomadic Clan as prototype of Middle Eastern segmented lineage systems: The Role of Marital Cohesion Results: Rather than treat types of marriage one by one: FBD, MBD etc., we treat them as an ensemble and plot their frequency distribution

42. Applications of Structural Endogamy A Turkish Nomadic Clan as prototype of Middle Eastern segmented lineage systems: The Role of Marital Cohesion Results: reversing axes, types of marriage are ranked here to show that numbers of blood marriages follow a power-law (indexical of self-organizing preferential attachments) while affinal relinking frequencies follow an exponential distribution # of Couples Ranking of Types

43. Applications of Structural Endogamy A Turkish Nomadic Clan as prototype of Middle Eastern segmented lineage systems: The Role of Marital Cohesion Results: Does the high degree of structural endogamy create a single root to the nomadic clan? An apical (circled) ancestor of the 90% of those down to today’s nomad clan members. Attributing common unilineal descent because of common roots is a common feature of Middle Eastern lineages

44. Bibliography: Brudner and White. 1997 “Class, Property and Structural Endogamy: Visualizing Networked Histories,” Theory and Society 25:161-208. Houseman and White. 1998 “Network Mediation of Exchange Structures: Ambilateral Sidedness and Property Flows in Pul Eliya, Sri Lanka” pp. 59-89, In, Thomas Schweizer and drw, eds. Kinship, Networks, and Exchange. CUP. Moody and White. 2003. “Social Cohesion and Embeddedness: A hierarchical conception of social groups” American Sociological Review 68:101-24. White. 1997. “Structural Endogamy and the graphe de parenté” Mathématique, Informatique et sciences humaines 137:107-125. White. 1999. “Controlled Simulation of Marriage Systems” Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation 3(2). White, Batagelj and Mrvar. 1999. “Analyzing Large Kinship and Marriage Networks with pgraph and Pajek,” Social Science Computer Review 17:245-274. White and Harary. 2001. “The Cohesiveness of Blocks in Social Networks: Node Connectivity and Conditional Density” Sociological Methodology 31:305-359 White and Jorion. 1996. “Kinship Networks and Discrete Structure Theory: Applications and Implications.” Social Networks 18:267-314 White and Schweizer 1998. “Kinship, Property and Stratification in Rural Java: A Network Analysis” pp. 36-58, In, Thomas Schweizer and Douglas White, eds. Kinship, Networks, and Exchange. Cambridge University Press.

46. Applications of Structural Endogamy A Turkish Nomadic Clan as prototype of Middle Eastern segmented lineage systems: The Role of Marital Cohesion • Key questions (based on Ula Johansen’s ethnography) • Was there a single genealogical root to the nomadic clan? • How are kinship units form and why do units of different scale bear the same name? • aile for family, minimal lineages and larger joint families • kabile for tribes or smaller lineages • How and why is kinship the result of marriages? • Basic hypothesis: • To the extent that marriages relink different families, patterns of “structural endogamy” defined by relinking reinforce and redefine the effective units and subunits formed by consanguineal kinship links among families.

47. Applications of Structural Endogamy A Turkish Nomadic Clan as prototype of Middle Eastern segmented lineage systems: The Role of Marital Cohesion Results: Was there a single root to the nomadic clan? • The number of descendants of each ancestor is a simple genealogical calculation from the p-graph. • It turns out that there is one single apical ancestor for 90% of clan between generations 3 and today’s clan members. • This occurs because descendants of the “root” ancestor relink with others, so nearly everyone becomes a descendant of the root, and because those who do not relink tend to leave the clan. • The “root” ancestor occurs at the generation where a single effective “matchmaker” effectively relinks all the sibling sets in the clan through the marriages of his children, one of them becomes the “root.”

48. Applications of Structural Endogamy A Turkish Nomadic Clan as prototype of Middle Eastern segmented lineage systems: The Role of Marital Cohesion Results: Did all 1000+ clan members follow Qur’anic rules of same-generation marriage? Whyso? • Individuals may be blood-related in several different ways. Doesn’t that lead to ambiguity in defining “same generation”? • The “generation” of each marriage is determined in a p-graph by minimizing the number of generations needed to keep parents and children at distinct generational levels. • By this criterion, same generation marriages account for 79% of all marriages, and one-generation differences account for 17% (96% total, even up to sixth cousins). Up to 2nd cousins, 92% of blood marriages are same generation. • Consistent with the importance of establishing cohesion at multiple levels through marriage, same-generation marriages minimize competition between generations over mates.

49. Applications of Structural Endogamy A Turkish Nomadic Clan as prototype of Middle Eastern segmented lineage systems: The Role of Marital Cohesion Results: How did leaders emerge out of the background of followers in their lineage and their clan? • Tanidik kisiler (=known persons) emerge as leaders partly by force of their personality, but also by the extent of their support network not only from their lineage, but in support that is distributed across lineages. • Hence the hypothesis that “distributed cohesion” is a basis for sets of people who are the support group for competing leaders has two aspects: • such groups overlap, criss-cross, and may contain structural “holes,” but are stronger to the extent that they span larger segments of the entire clan, and do not consist of just a localized and partial faction • the level of cohesion can be measured by the number of edge-independent paths between pairs within the group, including the leader. This is equivalent to the maximum flow capacity for between each pair, where a single parent-child link is considered to have a capacity of unity. This measure can be computed in UCINet.

50. Applications of Structural Endogamy A Turkish Nomadic Clan as prototype of Middle Eastern segmented lineage systems: The Role of Marital Cohesion Results: Summary: • Who stays and who returns to village life is predicted from kinship bicomponent membership. • Bicomponent relinking also plays a role in the emergence of a root ancestor, and of more localized root ancestors for different levels of kinship groupings. • Dynamic reconfigurations of political factions and their leaders are predicted from ensembles with different levels of edge-independent connectivity. • An index of the decline of cohesion of the clan would be the fragmentation of cohesive components in later generations... • Key concepts: bicomponent, edge-independent paths, connectivity. • Graphic technique:nuclear families as the unit of p-graph analysis. • An explanation of methods will be found in a book ms. : Social Dynamics of a Nomadic Clan in Southeastern Turkey: An Introduction to Networked Histories. Douglas White and Ulla Johansen. For submission to Westview or Altamira Press.