Inalienable possessions

Last updated

Inalienable possessions (or immovable property) are things such as land or objects that are symbolically identified with the groups that own them and so cannot be permanently severed from them. Landed estates in the Middle Ages, for example, had to remain intact and even if sold, they could be reclaimed by blood kin. As a legal classification, inalienable possessions date back to Roman times. According to Barbara Mills, "Inalienable possessions are objects made to be kept (not exchanged), have symbolic and economic power that cannot be transferred, and are often used to authenticate the ritual authority of corporate groups". [1]

Contents

Marcel Mauss first described inalienable possessions in The Gift , discussing potlatches, a kind of gift-giving feast held in communities of many indigenous peoples of the Pacific Northwest:

It is even incorrect to speak in these cases of transfer. They are loans rather than sales or true abandonment of possessions. Among the Kwakiutl a certain number of objects, although they appear at the potlatch, cannot be disposed of. In reality these pieces of "property" are sacra that a family divests itself of only with great reluctance and sometimes never. [2]

Annette Weiner broadened the application of the category of property outside the European context with her book Inalienable Possessions: The Paradox of Keeping-While-Giving, focussing on a range of Oceanic societies from Polynesia to Papua New Guinea and testing existing theories of reciprocity and marriage exchange. [3] She also applies the concept to explain examples such as the Kula ring in the Trobriand Islands, which was made famous by Bronisław Malinowski. [4] She explores how such possessions enable hierarchy by establishing a source of lasting social difference. She also describes practices of loaning inalienable possessions as a way of either "temporarily making kin of non-kin" or garnering status.

Inalienable Possessions: The Paradox of Keeping-While-Giving

Inalienable Possessions: The Paradox of Keeping-While-Giving is a book by anthropologist Annette Weiner. [5] Weiner was a Professor of Anthropology and Dean of the Graduate School of Arts at New York University, and served as president of the American Anthropological Association. She died in 1997.

The book focuses on a range of Oceanic societies from Polynesia to Papua New Guinea to test existing theories of reciprocity (gift-giving) and marriage exchange. The book is also important for introducing a consideration of gender in the gift-giving debate by placing women at the heart of the political process. [6] She finds inalienable possessions at the root of many Polynesian kingdoms, such as Hawaii and Samoa. She also credits the original idea of "inalienable possessions" to Mauss, who classified two categories of goods in Samoa, Oloa and le'Tonga─immovable and movable goods exchanged through marriage. [7]

Barbara Mills praised her investigation of how "inalienable possessions are simultaneously used to construct and defeat hierarchy", saying it "opens a boxful of new theoretical and methodological tools for understanding social inequality in past and present societies." [1]

Cosmological authentication

Young Maori woman wearing a high status feather cloak indicating nobility Maori cloak.jpg
Young Maori woman wearing a high status feather cloak indicating nobility

Weiner states that certain objects become inalienable only when they have acquired "cosmological authentication"; that is,

What makes a possession inalienable is its exclusive and cumulative identity with a particular series of owners through time. Its history is authenticated by fictive or true genealogies, origin myths, sacred ancestors, and gods. In this way, inalienable possessions are transcendent treasures to be guarded against all the exigencies that might force their loss. [8]

She gives the example of a Māori Sacred Cloak and says that when a woman wears it "she is more than herself – that she is her ancestors." Cloaks act as conduits for a person's hau or life giving spirit. The hau can bring strength or even knowledge potentially but a person may also have the risk of losing their hau. "An inalienable possession acts as a stabilizing force against change because its presence authenticates cosmological origins, kinship, and political histories." [9] In this way, the Cloak actually stands for the person. [10] "These possessions then are the most potent force in the effort to subvert change, while at the same time they stand as the corpus of change". [11]

Paul Sillitoe queries the supposed identification of these objects with persons. He states that these objects are "durable wealth [that] is collective property that is continually in circulation among persons who have temporary possession of it. In this view, transactable objects belong to society as a whole and are not inalienable possessions associated with certain persons. An analogy in Western culture is sporting trophies, such as championship boxing belts owned by all the clubs comprising the association that controls the competition in which constituent club members compete, and which pass for agreed periods of time into the possession of particular champions, changing hands as new champions emerge." [12]

Theuws argues that "Over time, objects acquire new meanings and what was once a humble pot may become a sacred vessel." This transformation in the object is the result of ritualization or a change in cosmology. [13] In fact, "Ritual Knowledge is often a source of political power." [14]

However, these possessions may also become destabilizing, as elites reconstruct those sacred histories to identify themselves with the past; for example, Gandhi invoked the traditional hand spinning traditional cloth, khadi, to contest British rule, which Nehru referred to as Gandhi's "livery of freedom". [15]

Keeping-while-giving

Inalienable possessions are nonetheless frequently drawn into exchange networks. The subtitle of Weiner's book is "The paradox of keeping-while-giving"; they are given as gifts (not sold) yet still retain a tie to their owners. These gifts are not like those given in regular gift giving in the West on birthdays for example. Rather, these gifts can't be re-sold for money by the receiver because the value and the significance of the gift cannot be alienated or disengaged from its relationship to those whose inalienable possession it is.

Property value, obligations and rights

These inalienable possessions are a form of property that is inalienable, yet they can be exchanged. Property can be thought of as a bundle of rights – the right to use something, the right to collect rent from someone, the right to extract something (as in oil drilling), the right to hunt within a particular territory. That ownership may be a bundle of rights held in common by groups of individuals or lineages. The property thus becomes impossible to separate from the group owning it. "To give in this instant means to transfer without alienating, or to use the language of the West, to give means to cede the right of use without ceding actual ownership". In other words, Weiner is contending that an economy built around the moral code of gift giving provides the giver rights over what he/she has given and in turn "subsequently benefits from a series of advantages." [16] Thus, when one accepts a gift one also accepts that the giver now has rights over the receiver.

Reconfiguring exchange theory

Weiner begins by re-examining Mauss' explanation for the return gift, the "spirit of the gift." The "spirit of the gift" was a translation of a Maori word, hau. Weiner demonstrates that not all gifts must be returned. Only gifts that are "immoveable property" can become inalienable gifts. She further argues that inalienable possessions gain the "mana" (spirit) of their possessors, and so become associated with them. These goods are frequently produced by women, like the feather cloak above. The more prominent the woman, the more mana the object is thought to inherit. The longer the kin group can maintain the object in their possession, the more valuable it becomes; but it must also be periodically displayed to assert the group's status, and thus becomes an object of desire for outsiders. [17]

The sibling incest taboo

Weiner argues that the role of women in the exchange of inalienable possessions has been seriously underestimated. Kinship theory as developed by Claude Lévi-Strauss, used the "sibling incest taboo" to argue that women themselves are objects of exchange between lineage groups. Men had to find women outside their kin groups to marry hence they "lost" their sisters in order to gain wives. Weiner shows that the focus on women as wives ignores the importance of women as sisters (who are not "lost" as a result of becoming wives). Women produce inalienable possessions which they may take with them when they marry out; the inalienable possession, however, must be reclaimed by her brother after her death in order to maintain the status of the kin group. In comparing Hawaii, Samoa and the Trobriands, she argues that the more stratified a society is by ranked differences, the more important inalienable possessions produced by sisters become. The more stratified a society becomes (as in Hawaii), the closer the sibling bond ("sibling intimacy"). In these cases, women are critical to the "cosmological authentication" of inalienable possessions. [18]

The defeat of hierarchy

A critical part of Weiner's argument is that the ability to keep inalienable possessions outside of exchange is a source of difference, and hence brings high status. The development of Polynesian kingdoms is an example. She points to the inalienable possessions of the Australian aborigines, however, to demonstrate how the creation of hierarchy can be defeated. Australian inalienable possessions are given cosmological authentication through their religious beliefs in the Dreaming.

As an ideology, The Dreaming is immaterial but in another sense, The Dreaming flourishes because it consists of material and verbal possessions—myths, names, songs, ceremonies, and sacred objects inherited from one generation to the next. In this way, The Dreaming itself encompasses vast inalienable possessions that are authenticated by the very cosmology under which they are produced. These possessions created in and authenticated by The Dreaming circulate from one person or group to another in a limited way. The possibilities of transmission in the face of the canon for guardianship establish for ritual leaders a domain of authority that in certain situations leads to a formalized position of rank. [19]

Weiner points out that the same gender relations of "sibling intimacy" affect the exchange of these inalienable objects. Women as sisters and women as wives provide the conduit for the gifting and return gifting of these goods, allowing the givers to build prestige. However, insofar as these inalienable possessions lose their cosmological authentication, these social hierarchies lose intergenerational longevity. Because the Dreaming itself is an inalienable possession kept secret by clan elders, it can be lost and hierarchy defeated. [20]

The paradox of keeping-while-giving

A Kula bracelet from the Trobriand Islands. Kula bracelet.jpg
A Kula bracelet from the Trobriand Islands.

Weiner has used the term to categorize the many Kula valuables of the Trobriand islanders who view those objects as culturally imbued with a spiritual sense of the gift giver. Thus, when they are transferred from one individual or group to another the objects reserve meaningful bonds associated with that of the giver and their lineage. The shell bracelets and necklaces given in exchange each have their own histories, and are thus ranked on the basis of who they have been exchanged to. There were, as well, less well known shells called kitomu which were individually owned (rather than being part of lineage history), which would be given to temporarily please a disappointed trade partner expecting a more valuable shell. [21]

The Kula trade was organized differently in the more hierarchical parts of the Trobriand islands. There, only chiefs were allowed to engage in Kula exchange. In hierarchical areas, individuals can earn their own kitomu shells, whereas in less hierarchical areas, they are always subject to the claims of matrilineal kin. And lastly, in the hierarchical areas, Kula necklaces and bracelets are saved for external exchange only; stone axe blades are used internally. In less hierarchical areas, exchange partners may lose their valuables to internal claims. As a result, most seek to exchange their kula valuables with chiefs, who thus become the most successful players. The chiefs have saved their Kula valuables for external trade, and external traders seek to trade with them before they lose their valuables to internal claims. [22]

Kula exchange is the only way for an individual to achieve local prestige without local political action. But this prestige is fleeting and does not transform into permanent differences in rank because women's participation is minor and Kula shells lack cosmological authentication. It is not Kula shells but women's cloth wealth that is connected with matrilineal ancestors. It is for this reason that women retain high prestige and authority despite the fame of male Kula exchange players. [23]

Godelier on keeping-for-giving and giving-for-keeping

Maurice Godelier has further elaborated on Annette Weiner's ideas on inalienable possessions in The Enigma of the Gift. He derived two theses from Weiner, to which he adds a third.

First Thesis: As discussed above, even in a society that is dominated by a gift-giving economic and moral code, the interplay of gift and counter-gift doesn't completely dominate the social sphere, as there must be some objects which are kept and not given. These things, such as valuables, talismans, knowledge, and rites, confirm identities and their continuity over time. Moreover, they acknowledge differences of identity of individuals or groups linked by various kinds of exchanges. [24]

Second Thesis: Women or the feminine element also exercise power by providing legitimation and redistributing of political and religious power among groups in a society. Godelier contends that Weiner refocuses attention on the role of women in constructing and legitimizing power. [25] While women, as wives, are frequently lowered in status, as sisters, they frequently retain equal status to their brothers. For example, in Polynesia, the woman as a sister appears to control those goods associated with the sacred, the ancestors, and the gods.

To this, Godelier adds a third thesis.

Third thesis: The social is not just the sum of alienable and inalienable goods, but is brought into existence by the difference and inter-dependence of these two spheres of exchange. Maintaining society thus requires not keeping-while-giving, but "keeping-for-giving and giving-for-keeping." [26]

Importance

Economists have often shunned the idea of pondering exactly why people want goods. [32] Goods serve many purposes beyond what classical economists might theorize. Goods can serve as systems of social communication according to Mary Douglas, a prominent anthropologist. [32] In fact, anthropology in general is important to economics because it talks about the socio-cultural relationships in economy and economy itself as a cultural system that is not just market-based. [33] Moreover, entire industries are often based on gift giving such as the pharmaceutical industry. In addition, gift-giving plays an important role in the cultural development of how social and business relations evolve in major economies such as in the case of the Chinese.

The concept has also been applied to objects in works of fiction, such as the One Ring in The Lord of the Rings . [34]

Notes

  1. 1 2 Mills, Barbara (2004). "The establishment and defeat of hierarchy: Inalienable possessions and the history of collective prestige structures in the Pueblo Southwest". American Anthropologist. 106 (2): 238. doi:10.1525/aa.2004.106.2.238.
  2. ↑ Mauss 2000
  3. ↑ Weiner, Annette (1992). Inalienable Possessions: The paradox of keeping-while-giving. Berkeley: University of California Press. pp. 131–47.
  4. ↑ Weiner, Annette (1992). Inalienable Possessions: The paradox of keeping-while-giving. Berkeley: University of California Press. pp. 32–3.
  5. ↑ Weiner, Annette (1992). Inalienable Possessions: The paradox of keeping-while-giving. Berkeley: University of California Press.
  6. ↑ Mills, Barbara (2004). "The establishment and defeat of hierarchy: Inalienable possessions and the history of collective prestige structures in the Pueblo Southwest". American Anthropologist. 106 (2): 239–41. doi:10.1525/aa.2004.106.2.238.
  7. ↑ Godelier, Maurice (1999). The Enigma of the Gift. Cambridge: Polity Press. p. 34.
  8. ↑ Weiner, Annette (1992). Inalienable Possessions: The paradox of keeping-while-giving. Berkeley: University of California Press. p. 33.
  9. ↑ Weiner, Annette (1992). Inalienable Possessions: The paradox of keeping-while-giving. Berkeley: University of California Press. p. 9.
  10. ↑ Weiner, Annette (1992). Inalienable Possessions: The paradox of keeping-while-giving. Berkeley: University of California Press. pp. 49–54.
  11. ↑ Weiner, Annette (1992). Inalienable Possessions: The paradox of keeping-while-giving. Berkeley: University of California Press. p. 11.
  12. ↑ Sillitoe, Paul (2006). "Why Spheres of Exchange". Ethnology. 45 (1): 15. doi:10.2307/4617561. JSTOR   4617561.
  13. ↑ Theuws, Frans (2001). Theuws, Frans; Van Rhijn, Carine (eds.). Topographies of Power in the Early Middle Ages Maastricht as a center of power in the early Middle Ages. Amsterdam: Brill. pp. 201–2.
  14. ↑ Spielmann, K.A. (2002). "Feasting, Craft Specialization, and the Ritual Mode of Production in Small-Scale Societies". American Anthropologist. 104 (1): 195–207. doi: 10.1525/aa.2002.104.1.195 .
  15. ↑ Weiner, Annette (1992). Inalienable Possessions: The paradox of keeping-while-giving. Berkeley: University of California Press. p. 10.
  16. ↑ Godelier, Maurice (1999). The Enigma of the Gift. Cambridge: Polity Press.
  17. ↑ Weiner, Annette (1992). Inalienable Possessions: The paradox of keeping-while-giving. Berkeley: University of California Press. pp. 44–65.
  18. ↑ Weiner, Annette (1992). Inalienable Possessions: The paradox of keeping-while-giving. Berkeley: University of California Press. pp. 66–97.
  19. ↑ Weiner, Annette (1992). Inalienable Possessions: The paradox of keeping-while-giving. Berkeley: University of California Press. p. 101.
  20. ↑ Weiner, Annette (1992). Inalienable Possessions: The paradox of keeping-while-giving. Berkeley: University of California Press. pp. 98–130.
  21. ↑ Weiner, Annette (1992). Inalienable Possessions: The paradox of keeping-while-giving. Berkeley: University of California Press. pp. 134–137.
  22. ↑ Weiner, Annette (1992). Inalienable Possessions: The paradox of keeping-while-giving. Berkeley: University of California Press. pp. 137–140.
  23. ↑ Weiner, Annette (1992). Inalienable Possessions: The paradox of keeping-while-giving. Berkeley: University of California Press. pp. 147–148.
  24. ↑ Godelier, Maurice (1999). The Enigma of the Gift. Cambridge: Polity Press. p. 33.
  25. ↑ Godelier, Maurice (1999). The Enigma of the Gift. Cambridge: Polity Press. pp. 33–4.
  26. 1 2 Godelier, Maurice (1999). The Enigma of the Gift. Cambridge: Polity Press. p. 36.
  27. ↑ Weiner, Annette (1992). Inalienable Possessions: The paradox of keeping-while-giving. Berkeley: University of California Press. p. 31.
  28. ↑ Godelier, Maurice (1999). The Enigma of the Gift. Cambridge: Polity Press. p. 6.
  29. ↑ Sahlins, Marshall (1972). Stone Age Economics. New York: Aldine de Gruyter. pp. 149–83.
  30. ↑ Godelier, Maurice (1999). The Enigma of the Gift. Cambridge: Polity Press. pp. 6–7.
  31. ↑ Godelier, Maurice (1999). The Enigma of the Gift. Cambridge: Polity Press. pp. 17–26.
  32. 1 2 Douglas 1979
  33. ↑ Erem 2007
  34. ↑ E.g. the Rings of Power, a Wizard’s staff, the sword Narsil, and the One Ring in The Lord of the Rings (Estep, Christina C. (2014). "Applying Anthropology to Fantasy: a Structural Analysis of The Lord of the Rings" (PDF).{{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)); Python robes (蟒衣) in Jin Ping Mei (Volpp, Sophie (June 2005). "The Gift of a Python Robe: The Circulation of Objects in "Jin Ping Mei"". Harvard Journal of Asiatic Studies. 65 (1): 133–158. doi: 10.2307/25066765 . JSTOR   25066765.); and secrets in Cranford (Rappoport, Jill (4 January 2008). "Conservation of Sympathy in Cranford". Victorian Literature and Culture. 36 (1): 95–110. doi:10.1017/s1060150308080066. S2CID   29398519.)

Related Research Articles

A gift economy or gift culture is a system of exchange where valuables are not sold, but rather given without an explicit agreement for immediate or future rewards. Social norms and customs govern giving a gift in a gift culture; although there is some expectation of reciprocity, gifts are not given in an explicit exchange of goods or services for money, or some other commodity or service. This contrasts with a barter economy or a market economy, where goods and services are primarily explicitly exchanged for value received.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Potlatch</span> Gift-giving festival and economic system

A potlatch is a gift-giving feast practiced by Indigenous peoples of the Pacific Northwest Coast of Canada and the United States, among whom it is traditionally the primary governmental institution, legislative body, and economic system. This includes the Heiltsuk, Haida, Nuxalk, Tlingit, Makah, Tsimshian, Nuu-chah-nulth, Kwakwaka'wakw, and Coast Salish cultures. Potlatches are also a common feature of the peoples of the Interior and of the Subarctic adjoining the Northwest Coast, although mostly without the elaborate ritual and gift-giving economy of the coastal peoples.

Economic anthropology is a field that attempts to explain human economic behavior in its widest historic, geographic and cultural scope. It is an amalgamation of economics and anthropology. It is practiced by anthropologists and has a complex relationship with the discipline of economics, of which it is highly critical. Its origins as a sub-field of anthropology began with work by the Polish founder of anthropology Bronislaw Malinowski and the French Marcel Mauss on the nature of reciprocity as an alternative to market exchange. For the most part, studies in economic anthropology focus on exchange.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Marcel Mauss</span> French sociologist and anthropologist (1872-1950)

Marcel Mauss was a French sociologist and anthropologist known as the "father of French ethnology". The nephew of Émile Durkheim, Mauss, in his academic work, crossed the boundaries between sociology and anthropology. Today, he is perhaps better recognised for his influence on the latter discipline, particularly with respect to his analyses of topics such as magic, sacrifice and gift exchange in different cultures around the world. Mauss had a significant influence upon Claude Lévi-Strauss, the founder of structural anthropology. His most famous work is The Gift (1925).

In cultural anthropology, reciprocity refers to the non-market exchange of goods or labour ranging from direct barter to forms of gift exchange where a return is eventually expected as in the exchange of birthday gifts. It is thus distinct from the true gift, where no return is expected.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Kula ring</span> Ceremonial exchange system in the Milne Bay Province of Papua New Guinea

Kula, also known as the Kula exchange or Kula ring, is a ceremonial exchange system conducted in the Milne Bay Province of Papua New Guinea. The Kula ring was made famous by the father of modern anthropology, Bronisław Malinowski, who used this test case to argue for the universality of rational decision-making and for the cultural nature of the object of their effort. Malinowski's seminal work on the topic, Argonauts of the Western Pacific (1922), directly confronted the question, "Why would men risk life and limb to travel across huge expanses of dangerous ocean to give away what appear to be worthless trinkets?" Malinowski carefully traced the network of exchanges of bracelets and necklaces across the Trobriand Islands, and established that they were part of a system of exchange, and that this exchange system was clearly linked to political authority.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Maurice Godelier</span> French anthropologist (born 1934)

Maurice Godelier is a French anthropologist who works as a Director of Studies at the School for Advanced Studies in the Social Sciences. He is one of the most influential French anthropologists and is best known as one of the earliest advocates of Marxism's incorporation into anthropology. He is also known for his field work among the Baruya in Papua New Guinea from the 1960s to the 1980s.

The Gift: Forms and Functions of Exchange in Archaic Societies is a 1925 essay by the French sociologist Marcel Mauss that is the foundation of social theories of reciprocity and gift exchange.

Hau is a notion made popular by the French anthropologist Marcel Mauss in his 1925 book The Gift. Surveying the practice of gifting, he came to the conclusion that it involved belief in a force binding the receiver and giver. The term 'Hau', used by Māori, became a paradigmatic example for such a view. Writing at the turn of the century, Mauss relied on limited sources but his analysis has been expanded and refined.

Structural anthropology is a school of sociocultural anthropology based on Claude Lévi-Strauss' 1949 idea that immutable deep structures exist in all cultures, and consequently, that all cultural practices have homologous counterparts in other cultures, essentially that all cultures are equatable.

The Moka is a highly ritualized system of exchange in the Mount Hagen area, Papua New Guinea, that has become emblematic of the anthropological concepts of "gift economy" and of "Big man" political system. Moka are reciprocal gifts of pigs through which social status is achieved. Moka refers specifically to the increment in the size of the gift; giving more brings greater prestige to the giver. However, reciprocal gift giving was confused by early anthropologists with profit-seeking, as the lending and borrowing of money at interest.

Timeline of anthropology, 1990–1999

Nutritional anthropology is the study of the interplay between human biology, economic systems, nutritional status and food security. If economic and environmental changes in a community affect access to food, food security, and dietary health, then this interplay between culture and biology is in turn connected to broader historical and economic trends associated with globalization. Nutritional status affects overall health status, work performance potential, and the overall potential for economic development for any given group of people.

"Gifting remittances" describes a range of scholarly approaches relating remittances to anthropological literature on gift giving. The terms draws on Lisa Cliggett's "gift remitting", but is used to describe a wider body of work. Broadly speaking, remittances are the money, goods, services, and knowledge that migrants send back to their home communities or families. Remittances are typically considered as the economic transactions from migrants to those at home. While remittances are also a subject of international development and policy debate and sociological and economic literature, this article focuses on ties with literature on gifting and reciprocity or gift economy founded largely in the work of Marcel Mauss and Marshall Sahlins. While this entry focuses on remittances of money or goods, remittances also take the form of ideas and knowledge. For more on these, see Peggy Levitt's work on "social remittances" which she defines as "the ideas, behaviors, identities, and social capital that flow from receiving to sending country communities."

Several authors have used the terms organ gifting and "tissue gifting" to describe processes behind organ and tissue transfers that are not captured by more traditional terms such as donation and transplantation. The concept of "gift of life" in the U.S. refers to the fact that "transplantable organs must be given willingly, unselfishly, and anonymously, and any money that is exchanged is to be perceived as solely for operational costs, but never for the organs themselves". "Organ gifting" is proposed to contrast with organ commodification. The maintenance of a spirit of altruism in this context has been interpreted by some as a mechanism through which the economic relations behind organ/tissue production, distribution, and consumption can be disguised. Organ/tissue gifting differs from commodification in the sense that anonymity and social trust are emphasized to reduce the offer and request of monetary compensation. It is reasoned that the implementation of the gift-giving analogy to organ transactions shows greater respect for the diseased body, honors the donor, and transforms the transaction into a morally acceptable and desirable act that is borne out of voluntarism and altruism.

A commodity pathway diversion is the ability of an object to move in and out of the "commodity state" over the course of its use life. Diversions can occur when an object is removed from its commodity pathway for its protection and preservation, or when a previously removed object is commoditized through reentry into the commodity pathway after having gained value through its absence. Diversion is an integrated part of the commodity pathway.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Maurice Bloch</span> British anthropologist

Maurice Émile Félix Bloch is a British anthropologist. He is famous for his fieldwork on the shift of agriculturalists in Madagascar, Japan and other parts of the world, and has also contributed important neo-Marxian work on power, history, kinship, and ritual.

This bibliography of anthropology lists some notable publications in the field of anthropology, including its various subfields. It is not comprehensive and continues to be developed. It also includes a number of works that are not by anthropologists but are relevant to the field, such as literary theory, sociology, psychology, and philosophical anthropology.

Annette Barbara Weiner née Cohen was an American anthropologist, Kriser Distinguished Professor of Anthropology, chair of the Anthropology Department, dean of the social sciences, and dean of the Graduate School of Arts and Science at New York University. She was known for her ethnographic work in the Trobriand Islands and her development of the concept of inalienable wealth in social anthropological theory.

Christopher A. Gregory is an Australian economic anthropologist. He is based at Australian National University (ANU) in Canberra, and has also taught at University of Manchester- where he was made Professor of Political and Economic Anthropology. He studied Economics at University of New South Wales and ANU before pursuing anthropology, following a period in Papua New Guinea. His main research has been in Papua New Guinea and Bastar District, central India, and he also co-authored a research methods manual for economic anthropology, 'Observing the Economy', with Jon Altman.

References

This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.