1 Tolosana, C. Lison and Ozanam, D., ‘Introductión’, in Alfonso, Esteban and Yves-René, Fonquerne eds., Los pirineos. Estudios de antropologia social e historia (Madrid, 1986), 9.Google Scholar

2 Ibid., 10 (translation mine).

3 Douglass, William A., Echalar and Murelaga. Opportunity and rural exodus in two Spanish Basque villages (London, 1975), 35.Google Scholar

4 For dissenting views see Flaquer, Luís, ‘Family, residence and industrialisation in northern Catalonia: legal and social aspects’, Sociologia Ruralis 16 (1986), 268–84CrossRefGoogle Scholar, and Rogers, Susan Carol, Shaping modern times in rural France (Princeton, 1991)Google Scholar. Flaquer describes the stem family household as both resilient and adaptive within an industrializing context while Rogers finds this social form to be occurring more frequently in the recent, as opposed to the remote, past of an Aveyronnais community (a setting not within but adjacent to the Pyrenees).

5 By the late twentieth century parents could designate a single heir for up to one-quarter of their estate with the remainder subject to equal distribution among all their offspring.

6 Martín, Antonio de San, El labrador vascongado (Bilbao, 1984), 158–60. Originally published in 1791.Google Scholar

7 Jovellanos, Caspar Melchor de, Informe sobre la ley agraria (Madrid, 1977), 228–43. Originally published in 1795.Google Scholar

8 Caballero, Fermín, Fomento de la población rural (Madrid, 1864), 28.Google Scholar

9 Ibid., 45–7.

10 Payne, Stanley G., A history of Spain and Portugal, vol. 2 (Madison, Wisc., 1973), 449–51Google Scholar; Tortella, Gabriel, ‘Agriculture: a slow-moving sector, 1830–1935’, in Nocolás, Sámchez-Albornoz ed., The economic modernization of Spain, 1830–1930 (New York, 1987), 42–62Google Scholar; Nadal, Jordi, ‘A century of industrialization in Spain, 1833–1930’, in Sánchez-Albornoz, ed., Economic modernization, 63–74.Google Scholar

11 Caron, François, An economic history of modern France (New York, 1979), 117–62.Google Scholar

12 Play, Frédéric Le, On family, work and social change (Chicago, 1982), 260–1 (work originally published in 1872 as La réforme sociale).Google Scholar

13 ‘Pierre-Guillaume-Frédéric Le Play’, in the Larousse, PierreGrand dictionnaire universel du XIX^e siècle, vol. 10 (Paris, 1865), 388.Google Scholar

14 Costa, Joaquín, Derecho consuetudinario y economia popular en España, 2 vols. (Barcelona, 1902).Google Scholar

15 Tolosana, Carmelo Lisón, ‘Pioneros aragoneses de la antropología social: Vagad, de las Cortes y Joaquín Costa’, Anales de la Fundación Joaquín Costa 4 (1987), 63.Google Scholar

16 Curiously, Lisón Tolosana emphasizes Costa's interest in the ‘organicity’ of culture and mythology in order to characterize him as a precursor of Marcel Mauss and Claude Lévi-Strauss (ibid.). I say ‘curiously’ because Costa's belief that social facts could only be understood when examined in context and in terms of their interrelationship with others in some kind of functioning, organic whole is quite consonant with British functionalist anthropological theory of which Lisón Tolosana, as an Oxford graduate in the 1960s, is a product.

17 Cited in Tolosana, Lisón, Pioneros aragoneses, 63.Google Scholar

18 Ibid., 62.

19 Andrew, Cristopher M. and Kanya-Forstner, A. S., France overseas. The great war and the climax of French imperial expansion (London, 1981).Google Scholar

20 Chiva, Isac, ‘Entre livre et musée. Emergence d'une ethnologic de la France’, in Isac, Chiva and Utz, Jeggle eds., Ethnologies en miroir. La France et les pays de langue allemande (Paris, 1987), 9, 20, 23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

21 Weber, Eugen, Peasants into Frenchmen. The modernization of rural France, 1870–1914 (Stanford, 1976).Google Scholar

22 Douglass, William A., ‘The Basque stem family household: myth or reality?’, Journal of Family History 13 (1988), 78–80CrossRefGoogle Scholar; González, Andrés Barrera, Casa, herencia y familia en la Cataluña rural (Madrid, 1990), 49–53.Google Scholar

23 Particularly, Douglass, , Echalar and Murelaga (London, 1975).Google Scholar

24 Hispanists form the largest country bloc within the membership of the Society for the Anthropology of Europe of the American Anthropological Society, as is the case within the membership of the European Association of Social Anthropologists. See Rogers, Susan Carol, Gilmore, David D. and Clegg, Melissa eds., Directory of Europeanist anthropologists in North America (Washington, D.C., 1987), 85Google Scholar; Husmann, Rolf and Husmann, Gaby eds., The EASA register (Göttingen, 1990), 356.Google Scholar

25 Pina-Cabral, Joâo de, ‘The Mediterranean as a category of regional comparison: a critical view’, Current Anthropology 30 (1989), 399–406Google Scholar. Kenney, Michael, ‘El rol de la antropologia social dentro de las ciencias sociales en España, Etnica 1 (1971), 91–105Google Scholar. For a recent discussion of the issues see Cátedra, María ed., Los españoles vistos par los antropólogos (Madrid, 1991).Google Scholar

26 Wylie, Laurence, Village in the Vaucluse (Cambridge, Mass., 1957).Google Scholar

27 Rogers, Susan Carol, ‘L'ethnologie nord-américaine de la France’, Ethnologic française 21, 1 (1991), 5–6.Google Scholar

28 Lévi-Strauss, Laurent, Mendras, Henri and Veyssier, Laurence, ‘Rural community studies in France’, in Jean-Louis, Durand-Drouhin, Lili-Maria, Szwengrub and loan, Mihailescu eds., Rural community studies in Europe (Oxford, 1981), 255–99CrossRefGoogle Scholar. At the same time such perceptions are relative. A recent work emphasizes the highly developed status of French rural studies vis-a-vis studies of rural life in the British Isles. See McDonald, Maryon, ‘Commentary and introduction’, in Philip, Lowe and Maryvonne, Bodiguel, Rural studies in Britain and France (London, 1990), 179–82.Google Scholar

29 Bernot, Lucien and Blancard, René, Nouville, un village français (Paris, 1953).Google Scholar

30 Lévi-Strauss, Mendras and Veyssier, , ‘Rural community studies’, 255.Google Scholar

31 Ibid., 257.

32 Ibid., 255.

33 Ibid., 271–3.

34 Izard, Michel, ‘Francia’, Anales de la Fundación Joaquín Costa 6 (1989), 76.Google Scholar

35 Bourdieu, Pierre, ‘Célibat et condition paysanne’, Etudes rurales 5–6 (1962), 32–135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

36 Ibid., 33 (translation, here and below, mine).

37 Ibid., 32.

38 Ibid., 33.

39 Ibid., 41.

40 Ibid., 38.

41 Ibid., 44–9. Normally, but not always, the inmarrying affine is female. Since she is in competition with her mother-in-law it is regarded to be disruptive if her dowry is superior to that deemed appropriate given the economic circumstances of her husband's household. An excessive dowry provides her with undue leverage and thereby constitutes a threat to the patriarchal authority structure of the stem family household. Conversely, it is deemed less threatening if a man of superior economic circumstances marries an heiress. Bourdieu notes, ‘For a man, the distance that separates his condition from that of his spouse can be relatively great when it is in his favour, but it remains very weak when it is to his disadvantage. For a daughter, the scheme is inversely symmetrical’ (p. 44).

42 See Rogers, Susan Carol, ‘Female forms of power and the myth of male dominance: a model of female/male interaction in peasant society’, American Ethnologist 2 (1975), 727–56CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Rogers, Susan Carol, ‘Genders in southwestern France: the myth of male dominance revisited’, Anthropology 9 (1985), 65–86Google Scholar; Gilmore, David A., ‘Men and women in southern Spain: “domestic power” revisited’, American Anlhropoligist 92 (1990), 953–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

43 Bourdieu, , ‘Célibat et condition paysanne’, 39.Google Scholar