Pakistani Punjabi landlords use marriage both strategically as well as affectively. That is to say, they seek maximal political advantage and minimal household disruption with marriage arrangements. Using a set of formal networks analyses tools, this article examines two hundred years of marriage decisions for one Punjabi landlord family. The radical shift in marriage decisions beginning from the 1920s is the result of an earlier shift in inheritance rules. The resulting change in marriage decisions has impacted not only on household dynamics, but has disrupted longstanding factional associations within the village.
BorgattiS. (1998). Social network analysis instructional web site, Vol. 2010. Retrieved September 10, 2012, fromhttp://www.analytictech.com/networks
2.
BorgattiS. P.MehraA.BrassD. J.LabiancaG. (2009). Network analysis in the social sciences. Science, 323, 892–895.
3.
CarstenJ. (1997). The heat of the hearth: The process of kinship in a Malay fishing community. Oxford studies in social and cultural anthropology. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
4.
FischerM. D. (1999). Representing anthropological knowledge: Calculating kinship; Analyzing and understanding cultural codes. Canterbury, UK: Centre for Social Anthropology and Computing. Accessed July 1, 2012, http://era.anthropology.ac.uk
5.
FischerM. D. (1994). Modelling complexity: Social knowledge and social process. In HannC. (Ed.), When history accelerates: Essays on rapid social change, complexity, and creativity. London, England: Athlone Press.
6.
FischerM. D.ReadD. (2005). Kinship Algebra Expert System: A computer program and documentation for formal modelling of kinship terminologies and the simulation of populations that under these models(Vol. 2010). Canterbury, New Zealand: CSAC Monographs.
7.
GoodyJ. (1976). Production and Reproduction: A Comparative Study of the Domestic Domain. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge.
8.
HousemanM.WhiteD. R. (1998a). Taking sides: Marriage networks and dravidian kinship in lowland South America. In GodelierM.TrautmannT.FatF. T. S. (Eds.), Transformations of kinship (pp. 214–243). Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution Press.
9.
HousemanM.WhiteD. R. (1998b). Network mediation of exchange structures: Ambilateral sidedness and property flows in Pul Eliya. In SchweizerT.WhiteD. R. (Eds.), Kinship, networks and exchange (pp. 58–88). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
10.
LeachE. (1961). Pul Eliya: A village in Ceylon. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
11.
LyonS. M. (2004). Modeling Context in Punjabi Conflict Resolution: Social Organizations as Context Agents. Cybernetics and Systems, 35, 193–210.
12.
LyonS. M.MagliverasS. S. (2006). Kinship, computing and anthropology. Social Science Computer Review, 24, 30–42.
13.
NooyW. D.MrvarA.BatageljV. (2005). Exploratory social network analysis with Pajek. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge.
14.
ReadD. (2001a). What is kinship? In FeinbergR.OttenheimerM. (Eds.), The cultural analysis of kinship: The legacy of David Schneider and its implications for anthropological relativism (pp. 78–117). Urbana: University of Illinois Press.
15.
ReadD. W. (2001b). Formal analysis of kinship terminologies and its relationship to what constitutes kinship. Anthropological Theory, 1, 239–267.
16.
ReadD. W. (2006). Kinship Algebra Expert System (KAES): A software implementation of a cultural theory. Social Science Computer Review, 24, 43–67.
17.
ReadD. W.BehrensC. A. (1990). KAES: An expert system for the algebraic analysis of kinship terminologies. Journal of Quantitative Anthropology, 2, 353–393.
