Content deleted Content added
m Reverted edits by 209.129.244.6 (talk) to last version by Acalycine |
|||
Line 24:
Bilateral primogeniture is a rarer custom of inheritance where the eldest son inherits from the father and the eldest daughter inherits from the mother. This practice was common among the Classic [[Mayas]], who transmitted the family's household furnishings from mother to eldest daughter, and the family's land, houses and agricultural tools from father to eldest son.<ref>{{cite web|title=Some Postclassic Questions About The Classic Maya Munro|publisher=S. Edmonson Tulane University|url=http://www.mesoweb.com/pari/publications/rt04/edmonson.pdf}}</ref> It was also seen in the Greek island of [[Karpathos]], where the family's house was transmitted from mother to eldest daughter, and the family's land was transmitted from father to eldest son.<ref>Vernier, 1984 {{full|date=June 2014}}</ref> Among the [[Igorot]], the father's land is inherited by his eldest son and the mother's land is inherited by her eldest daughter.<ref>{{cite web | url=http://www.vanuatu.usp.ac.fj/sol_adobe_documents/usp%20only/customary%20law/mendoza.pdf | title=Population Growth and Customary Law on Land: the case of Cordillera villages in the Philippines | publisher=National University of Ireland, Maynooth | author=Crisologo-Mendoza, Lorelei and Van de Gaer, Dirk | date=November 1997|accessdate=05 June 2014}}</ref>
A review of numerous studies found that the pattern of land inheritance traditionally prevalent among English, Dutch and [[New Englander]] peasants was [[partible inheritance]]. The pattern of land inheritance traditionally prevalent among [[Russians|Russian]] peasants was found to be close to patrilineal primogeniture, "as oldest sons may well inherit more". The conclusions of this review contradicts previous previous reports that Russians practiced equal inheritance of land by all sons and that the English, Dutch and New Englanders had no definite inheritance pattern.<ref>
In easternmost Europe, Patrilineal ultimogeniture prevailed among most [[Turkic peoples|Turkic]] peoples. Equal inheritance of property by all sons prevailed among most [[Uralic]] and [[Finno-Ugric]] peoples, and patrilineal primogeniture prevailed among [[Estonians]] and [[Balts]].<ref>{{cite journal | url=http://www.jstor.org/stable/3774059 | title=Ethnographic Atlas XXXI: Peoples of Easternmost Europe
Inheritance customs are sometimes considered a culturally distinctive aspect of a society; for example, the customs of [[primogeniture]] predominant among many northeastern Indian tribes have been considered as possible proof of their remote [[Jewish]] or [[Semitic]] origin.<ref name="primogeniture">{{cite web | url=http://scholar.sun.ac.za/bitstream/handle/10019.1/17750/Fachhai_primogeniture_2007.pdf?sequence=1 | title=Primogeniture in the Old Testament; Towards a Theological-Ethical Understanding of Patriarchy in Ancient Israel | publisher=University of Stellenbosch | date=December 2007 | accessdate=5 June 2014 | author=Fachhai, Laiu}}</ref> Although it is often thought that the [[Mizo people|Mizos]] employ ultimogeniture, this is because the customs of [[Lushai]]s or [[Lusheis]] are confused with those of all Mizos; Mizo and Lushai have been occasionally used interchangeably. Among most non-Lushai Mizos, primogeniture predominates,<ref>{{cite book | title=Social, Cultural, Economic & Religious Life of a Transformed Community: A Study of the Paite Tribe | publisher=Mittal Publications | author=Liankhohau, T. | year=1994 | pages=22 | isbn=9788170995203}}</ref> just as among [[Kukis]].<ref>{{cite web | url=http://kukiforum.com/2010/06/customary-laws-of-the-kukis-2/ | title=Customary Laws of the Kukis | publisher=Kuki International Forum | date=June 20, 2010 | accessdate=5 June 2014}}</ref> In general there is great confusion about the ethnic identity of the many northeastern [[Native Americans in the United States|Native American]] tribes.<ref>{{cite web|title=The Chin-Kuki-Ethnic Dilemma: Search for an Appropriate Identity|date=April 25, 2007|first=Chawnglienthang|last=Changsan|url=http://kukiforum.com/2007/04/the-chin-kuki-ethnic-dilemma-search-for-an-appropriate-identity-2/}}</ref> Some regard the generic term [[Zomi]] as most appropriate.{{citation needed|date=June 2014}}
Line 38 ⟶ 42:
Patrilineal primogeniture was traditionally prevalent among some pastoral peoples from Greenland and northern Canada. The neighboring [[Indigenous peoples of the Pacific Northwest Coast]] were organized in societies where elder sons and their lines of descent had higher status than younger sons and their lines of descent (a "conical clan"), although a rule of patrilineal primogeniture couldn't develop among most of them since they were mostly [[hunter-gatherers]]. However, rule of patrilineal primogeniture did develop among some Canadian indigenous peoples who practiced agriculture, such as the [[Innu people|Montagnais]], the [[Kutchin]], the [[Pikangikum]], the [[Ojibwa people|Ojibwa]], the [[Klallam]] and the [[Atsugewi]]. Canadian indigenous peoples were influenced by the ancient [[Thule people|Thule]] culture, of which little is known with certainty.
=== Other sources ===
Line 47:
Intergenerational wealth transmission among agriculturalists tends to be rather unequal.<ref>{{cite journal|title=Intergenerational Wealth Transmission among Agriculturalists|url=http://web.missouri.edu/~shenkm/docs/Shenk2010_CurrentAnthropology.pdf|author=Shenk, M K|journal=Current Anthropology|year=2010|month=Feb|volume=51|issue=1|pages=65–83}}</ref> Only slightly more than half of the societies studied practice equal division of real property; customs to preserve land relatively intact (most commonly primogeniture) are very common. Wealth transfers are more egalitarian among pastoralists, but unequal inheritance customs also prevail in some of these societies, and they are strongly patrilineal.<ref>{{cite journal | url=http://web.missouri.edu/~shenkm/docs/Shenk2010_CurrentAnthropology.pdf | title=Pastoralism and Wealth Inequality | author=Mulder, M B | journal=Current Anthropology | year=2010 | month=Feb | volume=51 | issue=1 | pages=35–48 | doi=10.1086/648561}}</ref>
A study of 39 non-Western societies found many customs that distinguished between children according to their sex and birth order. First sons, in comparison to other sons, "are likely to inherit or otherwise gain control of more family land, livestock, or other wealth."
The only custom that distinguished between sons among the Dagor Mongols was that first sons received more respect from his siblings and last sons received less respect from their siblings. This contradicts those theories that maintain that peoples of the Asian steppe had strong customs favorable to first or last sons. In fact, the indigenous American peoples had significantly more customs favorable to first sons than the Dagor Mongols.<ref name=Rosenblatt/>
▲A review of numerous studies found that the pattern of land inheritance traditionally prevalent among English, Dutch and [[New Englander]] peasants was [[partible inheritance]]. The pattern of land inheritance traditionally prevalent among [[Russians|Russian]] peasants was found to be close to patrilineal primogeniture, "as oldest sons may well inherit more". The conclusions of this review contradicts previous previous reports that Russians practiced equal inheritance of land by all sons and that the English, Dutch and New Englanders had no definite inheritance pattern.<ref>''Testing Todd: global data on family characteristics'', Auke Rijpma and Sarah Carmichael, Utrecht University http://vkc.library.uu.nl/vkc/seh/Lists/Events/Attachments/33/carmichaelrijpma_testing.pdf</ref>
Among [[Arab]] peoples, such as the Egyptian Fellahin, all sons inherited the same and had the same wealth. This was also seen among the [[Alaska Native]] peoples such as the [[Eyak people|Eyak]].<ref name=Rosenblatt/>
▲In easternmost Europe, Patrilineal ultimogeniture prevailed among most [[Turkic peoples|Turkic]] peoples. Equal inheritance of property by all sons prevailed among most [[Uralic]] and [[Finno-Ugric]] peoples, and patrilineal primogeniture prevailed among [[Estonians]] and [[Balts]].<ref>Ethnographic Atlas XXXI: Peoples of Easternmost Europe Author(s): Dmitri Bondarenko, Alexander Kazankov, Daria Khaltourina, Andrey Korotayev Source: Ethnology, Vol. 44, No. 3 (Summer, 2005), pp. 261–289 Published by: University of Pittsburgh- Of the Commonwealth System of Higher Education Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3774059</ref>
[[Jack Goody]] was an influential anthropologist during the twentieth century. However, his theories have been mostly rejected during the last decades.{{citation needed|date=March 2014}} He made a distinction between a complete and a preferential form of primogeniture and ultimogeniture. In the complete form of both customs, the rest of the children are excluded from the inheritance. However, in the preferential form of primogeniture, the eldest son acts as custodian of the father's rights on behalf of his brothers. In the preferential form of ultimogeniture, the youngest son inherits the residue of his father's property after elder sons have received their shares during the father's lifetime. Goody called ultimogeniture "Borough English" and primogeniture "Borough French" because in England ultimogeniture was a native custom, while primogeniture was a custom brought by the Norman invaders. According to Goody, in Late Medieval England, patrilineal primogeniture predominated in feudal tenures and among the peasantry of large parts of the Midlands. Patrilineal ultimogeniture ('Borough English') prevailed elsewhere in the champion country. Partible inheritance (''gavelkind'') prevailed in Kent, East Anglia and the Celtic areas.<ref>{{Cite book|title=Death and the Ancestors: A Study of the Mortuary Customs of the LoDagaa of the LoDagaa of West Africa|author= Goody, Jack|publisher=Routledge|year=2013|isbn=9781136528842}}</ref>
Both preferential primogeniture and preferential ultimogeniture were practiced in pre-revolutionary Russia, where the eldest son succeeded as family head and inherited more than the other sons.<ref>{{Cite journal|title=Peasant Inheritance Strategies in Russia |author= Bohac, Rodney D. |journal=The Journal of Interdisciplinary History |volume= 16|issue= 1|year = 1985|pages= 23–42| url=http://www.jstor.org/stable/204320}}</ref> The "the youngest son, if he remained with the father, inherited the house and also at times other property" (''minorat'').<ref>{{cite web|url=http://encyclopedia2.thefreedictionary.com/Minorat|title=Minorat|publisher=Great Soviet Encyclopedia}}</ref> However, the share of land and moveables of the other sons was only slightly smaller than that of the eldest and the youngest son. Only in the southern part of the country was the house inherited by the youngest son; in the north it was inherited by the eldest son.<ref name="efm.bris.ac.uk">
The Russian family of around 1900 considered property such as the house, agricultural implements, livestock and produce as belonging collectively to all family members. When the father died, his role as head of the family (known as Khozain, or Bolshak ) was passed to the oldest person in the house. In some areas this was the oldest son. In others it was the oldest brother of the deceased so long as he lived in the same house. There were some areas were a new head would be elected by the family members. If all surviving members of the family were under age, a relation would become a co-proprietor. If property was divided after a death, each adult male in the house got an equal share. Sons who had left home did not have a right of succession. Females remained within the family and received a share of the inheritance when they married. In the north of Russia, the oldest son inherited the house. In the south the eldest son would have set up a separate house while the father was still alive, therefore the youngest inherited the fathers house upon his death.<ref name="efm.bris.ac.uk"/>
| |||