17 - 18

October 2024

WORKSHOP
Family Resemblances:
Kinship Practices along the
Sino-Tibetan Borderlands

EFEO - Paris
Campus Condorcet - Aubervilliers
 Workshop convened by:

Stéphane Gros (CESAH, CNRS)

Pascale-Marie Milan (EFEO)

2
Anthropological debates in the 1950s on the marriage customs of the
Nayar of Kerala or, more recently, on the so-called “visiting system”
of the Na (Mosuo) of Southwest China have challenged conventional
understandings of the role of marriage and anthropological definitions
of the family. Whereas contemporary changes in family composition in
many societies worldwide have certainly altered how we think of family
today, the Na and their matrilineal households are still seen as a unique
case in the field of kinship studies.
This workshop aims to foster a comparative anthropological and
linguistic dialogue on kinship practices in the Sino-Tibetan borderlands,
based on the premise that the Na case needs proper contextualization
and that matrilineal kinship patterns and/or the visiting system are found
elsewhere in the region, together with other modes of socially accepted
sexual relations. In this trans-ethnic space, we find various combinations
of monogamy, polyandry, polygyny, and different proportions in terms
of marriage, cohabitation, and visits. While bilateral kinship systems are
rather common among Tibetic-speaking communities, the matrilineal or
patrilineal orientation of several local societies, the varied predominance
of descent or residence, and the importance of the “house” as a unit of
sociality are well-attested features that need to be considered in light of
various historical, religious, economic, and political factors.
For this workshop, we call for a shift in how we look at well-established
practices among people living in this culturally and linguistically diverse
zone of contact, in order to consider forms of relationality and their spatial
anchoring that do not presuppose “unilineal descent” or “marriage” as
the norm. Any understanding of family across the region must take into
account the associated conceptual categories of house, household, and
home, together with conceptions of descent and residence and other
idioms of trans-specific relatedness. We seek to explore the meanings of
this constellation of notions in local kinship systems and to identify the
“family resemblances” that can inform a comparative approach.

3
 Program
Jeudi / Thursday, October 17
Grand Salon, Ecole Française d’Extrême-Orient
22, avenue du Président Wilson, 75116 Paris
9:00 - Welcome
9:30–9:50 – Introduction: Kinship Practices from a Comparative
Perspective, Pascale-Marie Milan (EFEO) and Stéphane Gros (CNRS)
9:50–10:10 – Jade d’Alpoim Guedes (University of Washington): The
Archaeology of Households on the Eastern Tibetan Plateau
10:10–10:30 – Discussion by Yves Goudineau (EFEO) and Q&A
Coffee break
10:50–11:10 – Wang Tingyu (Fu Jen University): Kinship Terms and the
“Bone and Flesh” Classification: A Preliminary Comparison of Sichuan
rGyalrong Kinship
11:10–11:30 – Su Wan (Shanghai University): Names without Fathers’
Blood: Anthroponymy and Kinship World of Gyalrong Tibetans
11:30–12:10 – Discussion by Guillaume Jacques (CNRS) and Q&A
Buffet
13:40–14:00 – Eveline Bingaman (Fu Jen Unversity): A Spouse is
Not a Lover, a Lover is Not a Spouse: The Structural Divisions of
Intersubjectivities in Eagleback Naxi House Kinship
14:00–14:20 – Pascale-Marie Milan (EFEO): Gender Balance Strategies
and Social Engineering Pressures: “Taking Wives” (chumi shei) in the
Context of the Na Family of Lijiazui in Feudal Times and in Present-day
China
14:20–15:00 – Discussion by Nicolas Sihlé (CNRS) and Q&A
Coffee break

4
15:20–15:40 – Stéphane Gros (CNRS): How Does the House Hold?
Gender Balance and Siblingship in Drapa (Zhaba)
15:40–16:00 – Alexis Michaud (CNRS): The Na Family as a Paragon of
Confucian Virtue: A Contemporary Narrative
16:00–16:40 – Discussion by Philippe Ramirez (CNRS) and Q&A
16:40–17:30 – Concluding remarks

Vendredi / Friday, October 18

Aubervilliers, Campus Condorcet
Table ronde 1 / Roundtable 1: Kinship Terminologies
Table ronde 2 / Roundtable 2: Figures of Kinship in Myths and Rituals
Lunch
Table ronde 3 / Roundtable 3: Anthropological Comparisons: Notions
and Concepts

The roundtables organized on the second day of the workshop are not
public events. Attendance is by invitation only.
Those interested in attending should contact the organizers:
Pascale-Marie Milan ([email protected]) and Stéphane
Gros ([email protected])

5
 List of abstracts
(in alphabetical order)

Eveline Bingaman, Fu Jen Catholic University

A Spouse is Not a Lover, a Lover is Not a Spouse: The Structural
Divisions of Intersubjectivities in Eagleback Naxi House Kinship
Under the governance of the Muli Tibetan Kingdom (from 1677 to 1957)
Eagleback Naxi families were economically pressed to meet the in-kind
and labor tax obligations imposed on each household unit. At the same
time, a monk levy that limited family size to two men per generation
per household prevented families from consolidating excess labor that
would allow families a measure of prosperity. Under these extremely tight
circumstances, it was essential that families work together and avoid
divisions from arising within the home that would upset the delicate
balance of harmony. In maintaining this balance, generational transitions,
particularly those surrounding the incorporation of new members to
ensure reproduction, are times of great potential disruption. For this,
Eagleback Naxi created a system of divided intersubjectivities among
the relationships between opposite-sex couples that allowed for the
fulfillment of both collective and individual needs. Essentially, marriage
was a partnership within the household and, as such, was subject to
strict taboos regarding the interactions between husbands and wives
aimed at preventing couples from getting too close—a situation that
could lead to a division of interest within the home. At the same time,
it was acceptable for both partners to have anda (Iovers) outside the
household where individuals could fulfill their individual needs for
intimacy without the relationship impacting on household resources. In
this way, a structural division was created between spouses who were
economic partners and lovers who were emotional companions.

Jade d’Alpoim Guedes, University of Washington

The Archaeology of Households on the Eastern Tibetan Plateau
Understanding kinship is critical to any anthropological endeavor.
However, projecting how kinship has changed over the long term can be
challenging.
6
This paper examines what we might be able to glean about prehistoric
changes in kinship through the lens of household archaeology. Since
the 1960s, household archaeology has focused on the household as
a social unit and involves research on architecture, material culture
found within household features, and the implications of these for larger
sociopolitical organizations. More specifically, archaeologists have been
interested in trying to link shifts in household size to shifts in family size
and demography. This paper uses recent data from excavations on the
eastern Tibetan plateau to summarize what is known about shifts in
domestic structure size and construction from the Neolithic to the early
Historic period. During the Neolithic period (3500–2000 BC), housing
structures correspond to single-roomed and single-storied pit houses
which use wattle and daub as construction materials. During the Bronze
Age (following 2000 BC), on the southeastern plateau, we see a shift from
these pit houses to multi-room and possibly multi-storied structures with
stone foundations and upper stories built using wood and wattle and
daub structures. This paper examines the implications that this shift in
household construction might imply about who occupied these houses
in the past and how this changed over time.

Stéphane Gros, CESAH / CNRS

How Does the House Hold? Gender Balance and Siblingship in Drapa
(Zhaba)
The Tibetan region of Drapa (‘Drapa/nDrapa) is known to be one of
the regions where a form of visiting partnership similar to that of the
Na (Mosuo) is still commonly practiced, alongside other matrimonial
arrangements. While the “visiting system” is based on the establishment
of relationships between lovers who visit each other while living in their
respective homes, it is siblingship that constitutes the fundamental
relationship for maintaining household continuity. The gender balance
in the composition of a household in a given generation is a determining
factor in the choices made to ensure the continuity of a household. To
illustrate some of these choices, this presentation focuses on the life
stories of several houses and, in particular, that of a Han villager born
and raised in the area. His story and the way in which he tells it present
some interesting features that contrast with and highlight some of the
7
local values regarding what matters to family members in terms of
matrimonial options and choice of residence and how the contemporary
period is reshaping some of these practices.

Alexis Michaud, LACITO / CNRS

The Na Family as a Paragon of Confucian Virtue: A Contemporary
Narrative
As part of a documentation project on the Na (Moso) people of Yongning,
Ms. Latami Dashilame (born in 1950) has been providing recordings
on themes that she chooses in consultation with the visiting linguist.
The family is the main recurring theme in the documents collected
(available online in open access). The focus is on the family as it existed
“in olden times” (eyishei), but the speaker asserts a continuity with
the present and emphasizes principles that transcend any particular
society: addressing a linguist from a distant society, she stresses the
similarities between situations in different places, times and societies.
The aim of the workshop presentation is to reflect on the portrayal of
the ideal Moso family thus constructed. It emerges that this portrait,
although presented as atemporal and de-personalized, can actually be
interpreted as mirroring the choices made by the narrator-consultant
in the course of her life, in its specific historical context. The Na family
is clothed in Confucian garb, well in keeping with the political Zeitgeist
of a nation-state whose assimilationist project foregrounds traditional
virtues of filial piety and respect for elders as the crucible of a “Chinese
people” (中华民族) that transcends local specificities.

Pascale-Marie Milan, École Française d’Extrême Orient

Gender Balance Strategies and Social Engineering Pressures: “Taking
Wives” (chumi shei) in the Context of the Na Family of Lijiazui in Feudal
Times and in Present-day China
Villagers in Lijiazui recount how, prior to 1957, the feudal lord
(Tusi 土司) of Muli obliged them to marry in order for their children to be
legally recognized, or otherwise face hefty fines if they failed to comply
with the rule. This paper aims to examine, through genealogies and
life stories, these previously neglected practices, bringing to light their
8
systemic bearing on Na kinship in the village. Villagers most often narrate
the practice of bringing a wife into the house: literally, taking a wife (chumi
shei in the Na language) for the eldest son. It is seen as a purchase
(huae), a transaction requiring compensation in cattle and food and a
ritual of integration. In describing this practice, I draw up a portrait of the
relations in and between families and a more general portrait of kinship
relations in the village. I show that the practice of taking a wife is part
of a broader pattern of practices that continue to this day in the village
and elsewhere, such as adoption or son-in-law-taking (ssomae shei),
which share the common aim of achieving a gendered balance in the
household. Through these stories and the language of kinship expressed
by my interlocutors, I draw a more fine-grained picture of Na kinship.
I show that the anthropological notion of filiation does not make due
allowance for (i) the importance of the residential unit (the household)
and (ii) the flexibility of Na kinship.

Su Wan, Shanghai University

Names without Fathers’ Blood: Anthroponymy and Kinship World of
Gyalrong Tibetans
In most parts of the world, naming systems reflect patrilineal descent,
but the Gyalrong Tibetans present a notable exception. A Gyalrong
Tibetan typically has a single name that follows the general Tibetan
naming conventions, as well as a house name shaped by the historical
Tusi’s taxation and conscription policies. While this house name is often
analogized to the Han surname, it represents a kinship structure distinct
from the patriarchal clan system associated with the Han surname. Unlike
their Yi and Qiang neighbors, the Gyalrong do not record genealogies
based on paternal surnames to define family boundaries. In Gyalrong
kinship, “mountain gods/goddesses” replace “fathers” as the center of
ancestral beliefs and rituals, and the “family” is an assemblage of several
different house names that share the same blood tie and the same worship
of a particular mountain. Gyalrong names are often fluid and subject
to change: a second name given by a Han might signify the start of a
fictive kinship, and the house names of core members frequently change
due to the cognatic descent and marriage rules. Changing names does
not make it easy to establish firm family boundaries, in contrast to the
9
the consolidation of family names on Han patriarchal family boundaries.
Consequently, the flexibility of the Gyalrong naming system supports a
more open and inclusive kinship world.

Wang Tingyu, Fu Jen Catholic University

Kinship Terms and the “Bone and Flesh” Classification: A Preliminary
Comparison of Sichuan rGyalrong Kinship
The kinship system of the rGyalrong Tibetans in Northwest Sichuan
is organized around their kinship terminology and an encompassing
classification known as “bone and flesh.” The rGyalrong use kinship
terms to refer to or to address specific relatives during conversations,
while “bone and flesh” is a classification system that groups relatives into
distinct categories. For each individual, “bone” comes from the father’s
side and “flesh” from the mother’s side. However, the variations in kinship
terms across different rGyalrong regions seem to create additional
complexity rather than a homologous unity, making the understanding
of rGyalrong kinship system more chaotic. A potential solution is, firstly,
to apply the principle of the “bone and flesh” classification to the analysis
of kinship terms and to integrate both into a way of formally analyzing
kinship terminologies; secondly, to examine this method through the
comparison of kinship terminology from different rGyalrong societies.
This paper draws on kinship data from rGyalrong communities in
Maerkang County, Jinchuan County, and Lixian County in the Aba Qiang
and Tibetan Autonomous Prefecture. By examining kinship terminology
alongside the “bone and flesh” classification, this paper aims to identify
a comparative structure of kin classification that might reveal a grouping
pattern which is different from social organization, such as the rGyalrong
house.

10