Inka Conical Clan
Inka Conical Clan
Inka Conical Clan
Proto-Indo-European Kinship
Author(s): Paul Friedrich
Source: Ethnology, Vol. 5, No. 1 (Jan., 1966), pp. 1-36
Published by: University of Pittsburgh- Of the Commonwealth System of Higher Education
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3772899 .
Accessed: 22/06/2014 19:14
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
University of Pittsburgh- Of the Commonwealth System of Higher Education is collaborating with JSTOR to
digitize, preserve and extend access to Ethnology.
http://www.jstor.org
Paul Friedrich
University of Chicago
". . . alle Geschichte ist eben ein Fluss der Entwicklung und
sie Hsst sich demnach nicht in feste Gestaltungen, sondern nur
in Stromungen zerlegen"?Paul Vinogradoff
phonology has been to linguistic structure; the tightness of the two sorts
of paradigms admits a relatively great degree of formalization and of appli?
cation of the comparative method. It is probably no accident that Saussure's
reconstruction in the 1870s of the laryngeals of PIE phonology was followed
shortly by a comparable tour de force in the form of Delbmck's reconstruction
of an essentially Omaha system of kinship.
The stages of the argument below deal successively with the following
topics in Proto-Indo-European kinship: the immediate blood relationships,
then the extended patriarchal family and the relationships through marriage,
and finally the Omaha hypothesis and the refutation of cross-cousin marriage.
Let us begin with a review of the areal and chronological background.
more specific area of the foothills and steppe country from northwest of the
Caucasus to north of the Caspian. In the first place, a constellation of typo?
logical linguistic rarities such as the single "general vowel," taken together
with the basic grammatical design, would link PIE in a Sprachbund with
Proto-Caucasian or General Caucasian as exemplified by languages such as
Kabardian (Kuipers 1960; Trubetskoy 1939), although adequate comparative
work remains to be carried out.2 Second, all the ingenious arguments about
PIE words for fauna and flora (Thieme 1953) that have been used in favor
of northeastern Europe can be applied just as well to Cis-Caucasia, where,
for example, the honey bee, the wolf, and the "shining one" (the beech)
are found in abundance; and in the tributaries to the Black and Caspian Seas
there swim salmon that attain the length of 92 centimeters. In the third
place, several dozen sound etyma refer to (presumably) domesticated animals
such as sheep, oxen, pig, and horse, to domesticated grains such as barley,
and to a variety of cultural artifacts such as the boat, rudder, and oar and
the axle, yoke, and four other specific wagon parts; one form may have
denoted a metal, but there is dispute as to whether it was copper or bronze.
In any case, one can reconstruct a fairly mobile, late Neolithic or Early
Chalcolithic culture of animal-breeding agriculturalists.3
The way of life inferred on purely linguistic grounds jibes with the
archeological "Kurgan" culture of the Cis-Caucasian-Caspian area, where
wagons, livestock, and a mixed economy are fully attested in the excava-
tions. In addition, Kurgan archeology specifically indicates small houses,
small, fortified settlements (Greek polis, Sanskrit pur-as), and the burial of
leaders beneath mounds (Russian \urgdny). The speakers of PIE dialects
probably spent the winter months in the foothills or other sheltered areas and
hunted and pastured on the Cossak steppe during the warmer season, just
as did the Bashkir, Kalmyk, Kazak, and other "South Russian" semi-pas-
toralists of the last century.
During the middle of the third millennium the western sections of this
Kurgan culture, speaking dialects of PIE that were already strongly dif?
ferentiated, appear to have moved toward the west and south, and to have
participated in the so-called Transcaucasian Copper Cultures. Shortly there?
after, having acquired and probably improved on the battle ax and the light,
spoked chariot, the members of the same community spread into southern
and eastern Europe, disrupting Tripolye in the Ukraine about 2100 B.C.
The proto-Greeks probably entered Greece and western Anatolia about 1950;
their advent is associated with the diffusion of "Grey Minyan Ware" pottery.
Other branches had reached the Rhine and the Baltic by 1900; their spread
seems to be associated with the battle axes and corded ware of the Kurgan
culture and its derivatives. Yet other branches moved southwards into Meso?
potamia, establishing the Mitanni confederacy, and also into Egypt as the
Hyksos invaders. An eastern wing, presumably speaking early Indo-Iranian
dialects, entered Afghanistan and had conquered the Indus Valley by about
1600.
From India to the Rhine the migrations of these intruders caused a re-
arrangement of the pre-existing cultural patterns. Everywhere the early
During the first quarter of the second millennium the material culture of
eastern Europe was already differentiated in a manner corresponding roughly
to the probable location of the major linguistic stocks such as Teutonic and
Slavic. In sum, the dispersal of the Indo-European stocks in all directions but
due north (into the Ural Mountains) is correlated with the expansion over
the same space and time of a distinctive archeological complex; the rationale
of the age-area model solidly supports the hypothetical North-Caucasian-
Caspian origin of the Indo-Europeans. "The only plausible explanation of
the currency of languages so similar over so large an area at the beginning
of historical periods is that they derive from dialects of a fairly homogeneous
prehistoric language which had been disseminated by migrations out of a
smaller region" (Crossland 1957: 16).
Let us now turn to the linguistic and philological evidence on the kinship
system. In the present paper I have considered ten stocks (Tocharian and
Albanian being slighted for several reasons), although only three to five
reflexes are normally cited in the text. Special weight has been attached to
the oldest documents in Indic and Greek; both the Rigveda and the Homeric
epics depict cultures of the second millennium B.C. and present a full panoply
of terms enmeshed in an ethnographically realistic context (Piggott 1950: 244-
289). As regards the linguistic scholarship, many of the etymologies and
interpretations cannot be accepted today because they were worked out by
Indo-Europeanists indifferent to or ignorant of social anthropology. On the
other hand, I propose that Delbriick and several others have been essentially
sound in concluding that PIE kinship was patriarchal, patrilocal, and patri?
lineal, and with a system of terms and statuses that would now be classed as
"Omaha." To some extent, their ideas have been substantiated by the Hittite
texts.4
External, ethnological factors also support Delbruck's complex theory.
The tribes of the Caucasus and the South Russian steppes have always been
notably patriarchal, and most of them are patrilocal and have either patri?
lineal or double descent (Kovalevsky 1893: 272-273); by descent I refer to
rules for assigning status on the basis of birth and blood relationship. Patri?
lineal descent and inheritance are comparatively well adapted to economies
based on the herding of livestock by men, on hunting, and on the periodic
division of movable estate (Goodenough 1963: 927); these were very prob?
ably important economic components of large sections of the Proto-Indo-
European speech community. Finally, the Kazak and other semi-pastoral
groups in Southwest Asia have retained Omaha terminologies and patrilineal
avunculates with extraordinary conservatism for hundreds of years (Krader
1955)-
{hannas) and lost elsewhere without affecting the vowel quality. A second
point, of considerable semantic interest, is that, aside from Slavic and Ger-
manic "little grandson" (e.g., Old High German eninchili), the reflexes in
the other four stocks refer to an elder female relative, such as Latin anus
(old woman), Lithuanian anytas (husband's mother), or Hittite hannas
(grandmother). (h)an may also be linked to another well-attested PIE root
meaning "old, old person," (s)en, that began with the "s-movable" and is
reflected in Latin senex and Old Irish sen; the Armenian reflexes hana and
hin further increase the possibility of a relation to (h)an/en. I would con-
clude that the term was probably used to refer to persons in alternate genera?
tions, that it may have denoted any kind of grandrelative, but that it was
possibly limited to the grandchildren and the father's mother or some more
generic category of elder woman in the speaker's family group or household.
All six terms for immediate blood relatives are based on correspondences
of both form and of meaning in seven to eleven of the daughter stocks, and
all are reflected in both the Rigveda and Homer. They and all the other
reliable PIE reconstructions imply that the difference between generations
was discriminated. The line between blood relationships and relationships
by marriage was also sharply drawn in the sense that the reconstructed affinal
terms do not appear with consanguineal referents, and vice versa. The excep?
tions to this generalization have a unique or random character and represent
special histories within one of the stocks or individual languages. Finally,
the sex (as well as the grammatical gender) of the relative referred to was
implied by all the PIE terms except (h)an/en.
In Chart I the symbol /H/ stands for the first laryngeal, which is realized
as a mid-central vowel (shwa) between consonants, and a component of
length after vowels.5 The capital G stands for "found in Homeric Greek,"
the S for "found in the Rigvedas." Here and elsewhere the abbreviations
have the following meanings: Fa = father, Mo = mother, Pa = parent,
So = son, Da = daughter, Br = brother, Si = sister, Sb = sibling, Ch =
child, Hu = husband, Wi = wife. The numbers refer to the daughter stocks
in which are found phonologically more or less regular reflexes with the
specified referent cited.
The term for son, swHnws, is attested in seven stocks, including Vedic
Sanskrit sw.nuh, Avestan hunus, and Common Slavic synl. Following Brug-
mann (1905), many linguists would agree that swHnws, perhaps alone of
the six primary terms, derives from a verbal root, specifically swH-/sew-/sw-,
meaning "to give birth;" Sanskrit shows su:te:, "she gives birth," and sutd-h,
"son." Also, Hittite has the verb has(s)- "to give birth," the participle of
which (hassant-) means "own son" (J. Friedrich 1952: 62). These semantic
patterns are paralleled in several daughter languages. The Latin word for son
is fi:lius (feminine fi:lia). The Slavic word for child is deti, which is related
to the word for "to suckle, milk" (doiti). The roots of both the Latin and
Slavic words, and for several allied notions, go back to PIE dheH-, meaning
"to suckle, to be capable of bearing children" (Benveniste 1933: 15). In
short, the term-concepts for son seem to be related to those for female
CHART 1
tion of the initial stop following Grassmann's Law. But this runs counter to
strong arguments; above all, the transition from dhwgHteir to Sanskrit
duhitd: is paralleled by several other forms, whereas the alternative transi?
tion from dhwghHteir to Greek thugdteir would be unique.
Other philologists have derived dhwgHteir from the verb for "to milk";
for example, Sanskrit duhitd:/duh- (daughter/to milk) is paralleled by
Common Slavic dU\ti, dllsti/doiti. This hypothesis is weak on linguistic
grounds but may be paralleled by a genuine folk etymology; daughters
usually do function as milkmaids in the cattle-breeding cultures of Eastern
Europe and Central Asia (e.g., the Don and Terek Cossaks).
The most widely attested of all the PIE terms is that for "mother," as in
Old Irish maithir, Primitive Germanic mo:Ber, and Common Slavic mdt(i).
And the constituent phonological elements of the PIE maHteir are reflected
so regularly as to invalidate attempts to derive the term from "childish
babble," or at least to push the originating babble far back of the prehistoric
time horizon considered here. A far less frequent term of secondary status
was nan-/nana-, reflected in several languages including Tocharian and
Hittite. I know of no positive evidence for attributing distinct denotata to
maHteir and nana; judging from the daughter stocks, the latter was prob?
ably a contextual variant for use on less formal occasions.
The term for father (pHte:r) is reflected in nine stocks, including Vedic
pitdr and Gathic (Persian) pta:/ta: (the latter from compounds where the
shwa is lost internally). Other cognates include Primitive Germanic fdder
and even Tocharian paitar. Regular also is the hayr of Armenian, where
initial /p/ goes to /h/, and Old Irish aithir reflects the regular loss of PIE
/p/ initially before vowels in Keltic. An alternative and definitely secondary
term for father (atta/tata) is reflected in a number of stocks and has aroused
a good deal of inconclusive philological discussion; it may be the source of
Common Slavic otltsl. The peculiarities of the Slavic father term, together
with the two uniquely Slavic innovations for the wife's parents, probably
symbolize important social differentiations within the Slavic community very
early after the breakup of the PIE speakers, or perhaps even during the many
centuries or millennia that Slavic constituted one of the PIE dialects.
The analysis of the sibling terms particularly merits attention. BraHte:r,
while denoting "brother" in most of the ten stocks where it is reflected, as in
Primitive Germanic bro:&er, encompasses a broader range of agnates in some
cases. For example, many Slavic languages use derivations from the fraternal
term to designate a wide set of secondary male relatives, perhaps most strik-
ingly in the case of Russian bratdn, meaning (with some dialectal variation)
a brother, elder brother, cousin, brother's son, or nephew. The Homeric
phra:te:r actually meant "member of the same phratry," and the phratry,
within the original framework of the archaic Greek charter, was a patrilineal
group with several important ritual and political functions.
The evidence for the classificatory extension of the brother term is paralleled
by that for the "sister," reflected, in the first place, in Homeric heores, Russian
sestrd, and an otherwise almost complete set that even includes Tocharian
sesdr. Second, Brugmann, Benveniste (1934), and others have analyzed PIE
swesoir as composed of the roots for "own" (swe-)y which occurs elsewhere
in the kinship terminology, and for "woman," as reflected, for example, in
the first syllable of Avestan hair-is-i. The PIE swesoir was probably of con?
siderable antiquity by the end of the third millennium: "II semble bien en
effet que par ailleurs les deux elements de swesoir n'etaient plus per^us
distinctement des la language commune . . ." (Benveniste 1934: 106). Illus-
trating a somewhat similar conceptualization, the Pre-Irish form for "daugh?
ter" can be analyzed as "the one born inside" (some sort of kinship group).
These two etymologies, as well as structural considerations, tempt one to
postulate for swesoir a more inclusive meaning of "own woman" that would
override generations. But this cannot be done because there is no positive
evidence that swesoir was extended to the father's sister or to the daughter.
Another scholar has argued that the soir element derives from the PIE root
for "blood" (esor/esr), reflected in Sanskrit dsr\, Greek ear, and Hittite
eshar (Mayrhofer 1952: 32-33), but this hypothesis seems untenable because
the /-r/ of "blood" (alternating morphophonemically with /-n/ is actually
the suffix of a heteroclite with the shape VsH-.)
In Ossetian, an Iranian language of the Caucasus, the descendent of the
PIE swesoir is today xo/xwoeroe and means "the woman of my clan," just as
Ossetian oervad, the reflex of PIE braHteir, means "clan brother" (Abaev
1949: 61-63). This type of evidence in "relic areas" of the daughter stocks
reinforces the hypothesis of a classificatory terminology in PIE; specifically,
the two sibling terms may have included certain kinds of cousins, e.g.,
father's brother's children, as is still the case in many Balkan and Caucasian
cultures. Analysis of the two sibling terms as classificatory, as well as other
etymologies of basic kinship terms, is given additional validity through a
second areal consideration: in many Caucasian languages such as Kabardian
the term for example, for brother (qf?a-s), consists of two segments, "son"
(q?) plus "sibling" (i), the sister term consists of daughter plus sibling, and
so forth (Kuipers 1960: 91); the areal pattern seems to be that some basic
terms are analyzable.
Several other PIE morphemes have more special implications. One solid
root is orbho-, reflected in five stocks with the socially related meanings of
either "orphan" or "inheritance" (Ernout-Meillet 1951: ii, 828); in the archaic
peasant system of nineteenth century Russian, for example, orphans adopted
into a patrilocal household usually acquired full rights of inheritance,
and similar patterns may have prevailed in PIE. The term for "widow"
(wydh(e)waH-) is well attested by words with precisely this meaning in
eight stocks, with languages ranging from Old Irish (fedb), to Common
Slavic (vldova), and even to Hittite (sal) udati (J. Friedrich 1952: 237).
One widely accepted and inherently reasonable etymology derives the term
from the root wydh-, "to be empty, inadequate." The strength of the cor-
respondences for "widow" as against those for "widower" may indicate that
the former status was differentiated, perhaps through some rule for the remar-
riage of women; the remarriage of widows was forbidden, for example,
among some early Teutonic and Greek tribes. Or widows may have been
marked for some mortuary ritual; sacrifice and interment with the husband
have been postulated on purely archeological evidence from the chiefly tombs
of the Cis-Caspian-Caucasian homeland area. In Roman law a widow could
not remarry out of the clan of her deceased husband (Rose 1925: 121), and
concubines were still being sacrificed by the Varangian conquerors of Russia
as late as the ninth and tenth centuries A.D. All such patterns are but extreme
expressions of viripotestality.
The term for husband's mother is probably older than that for husband's
father. This is partly because all the reflexes for the former reconstruct to a
base of a single type whereas those for the latter go back to two alternates
(Grammont 1924: 111-118). In the second place, (swe-)f(rwHs is a perfectly
canonical member of a small and probably ancient lexical set that also includes
words for "mouse, sow, fish" and that lacks an e-alternation in the oblique
cases; derivation of (swe-)\wros (with metathesis of /r/ and /w/) would
simply be another instance of a regular and enormously productive process
in PIE morphology?from a base with addition of the thematic vowel?
whereas derivation in the opposite direction would be anomalous and
unique. Temporal priority for the husband's mother term?established
on purely linguistic grounds?fits with the hypothesis of an extended
patrilocal family where the primary relation of the in-marrying woman is
to her mother-in-law.
Both of the PIE parent-in-law terms appear to be compounded of a
reflexive, pronominal morpheme for "own" {swe-), which reappears in
what may be later secondary formations for other affines, such as the Old
High German swaiger, "wife's brother." Swe- (discussed above in connection
with swesoir) appears to have been conjoined with a morpheme for "chief,
power" (l(rwH-), plus affixes denoting sex gender (Schrader 1901: 753). Such
etymological transparency suggests that at some time during PIE unity
(2900-2300 B.C.) the women shifted from a previous usage to these special
descriptive compounds for the husband's parents. Paralleling this hypothetical
but likely development, we find that as late as Homeric and Vedic times
men were still using generic terms with the notion of "own, attached" for
the wife's father (Homeric pentheros and Vedic sam bandhin, both deriving
from PIE bhendh-, "bind, attach"). On the other hand, key exceptions in
the ancient texts make it seem quite possible that derivations from swe\wros
and swe^rwHs could also be used for the wife's parents (Delbriick 1889:
remarkable similarity, mentioned above, between PIE snwso-s and the South
Caucasian nosa, "son's wife."
The affinal terms discussed so far are presented in Chart 2. In this chart
the triangles denote male sex, the circles denote female sex, the equal signs
denote marriage, the horizontal, linking bars denote siblingship, and the
vertical bars denote parenthood.
The affinal terms discussed so far can now be conjoined with the evidence
from legal texts and archeological sites in order to give a fuller idea of norms
and behavior.
In the first place, the five virilateral affinal terms plus snwsos would
normally imply patrilocality (or viripatrilocality), namely, that upon mar?
riage the girl removed to the familial group of her husband's father. By way
of contrast, the emotional and legal ties of the husband to his wife's relatives
appear to have been comparatively neutral or unimportant. The conclusion
of Meillet (1937: 391) deserves to be cited, although it requires serious
qualification as to the status of the wife's brother (syVHr-), and the sec?
ondary usage of the parent-in-law terms, not to mention the ambiguity of
his phrase "parente masculine":
Tout ceci indique un etat social ou la femme entrait dans la familie du mari, mais ou
le mari n'avait pas avec la familie de sa femme une parente. II s'agit de ces "grandes
families*' a parente masculine, telle qu'on les observe encore chez les Serbes (zadruga)
et chez les Armeniens.
Put more generally, the manner in which the sex of the linking relative was
regularly discriminated in all the affinal terms except those for spouse is as
diagnostic of unilocality as the overriding of generation in Crow-Omaha
systems is diagnostic of unilineal descent.
In the second place, all the evidence from the early texts, including the
Vedas, Homer, the Hittite and Roman laws, and Tacitus, indicates strong
patripotestality, that is, a concentration of rights to the father as against
obligations to the son. The relations between Telemachus and Odysseus are
typical. The father often had the right of life and death over his own
children, as in the Roman patriapotestas. In short, the extended family was
patriarchal.
Third, there is external evidence on an extended family group and its
chief. A wide and long-recognized set of correspondences is at once phono-
logically regular and widely divergent in meaning, ranging from a patri?
archal household (the Homeric F6i\os), to a village quarter (Gothic weihs
and Latin uixus), to a family plot of some kind (the Common Slavic
vlsl), to a local district (the Indian vis), to a clan or lineage of some
sort in yet another Homeric context (Meillet 1937: 392). The associated
meanings of this set of cognates indicates some sort of extended familial
group, possibly linked to a plot or domicile, possibly connected to a patri?
lineage, although there is admittedly no way of deciding unequivocally
between these semantic antecedents. In addition, there is a second, excellent
set of correspondences, ranging from Greek despoteis to Old Prussian
waispattin, that generally serve to denote the head or chief of a family; they
contain the same root for power (pot-) that shows up in the term for
husband (potys) and, possibly, for nephew (nepot-); some component of
authority must be postulated here to cover the clearly politico-governmental
meanings. For such words which symbolize the intersection of the kinship
and some other semantic domain I would suggest the expression "quasi-
kinship terms."
Last, we must consider the PIE domicile. The proto-language actually
shows two words for house: (1) domos, as in Sanskrit ddmah, Greek domos,
and Russian dom, and (2) a second, West Indo-European set with /b/ that
is reflected in Germanic, Old Welsh treb, Lithuanian troba, and Latin trabs.
Some physical features of this domicile can be determined on philological
grounds?for example, the walls were probably of wattle. But for the dimen?
sions and the number of rooms we must look to the archeological evidence.
As a matter of fact, the third millennium sites of the postulated PIE home-
land, whether northeastern Europe or the Cis-Caspian-Caucasian area, reveal
relatively small houses or huts of one to three rooms, each room with a floor
space of about nine to twenty square yards. It has been shown above that
the affinal terminology makes patrilocality probable. Putting the two patterns
together, we may conclude that the dwellings in question accommodated
either immediate families or small patrilocal or joint fraternal aggregates
consisting of two to four immediate families, and that in many cases the
patrilocally grouped individuals may have lived together in separate but
adjoining or neighboring huts within the same village. This type of patri?
local group "on the ground," to use Leach's catchy idiom, is eminently
compatible with an Omaha system. But more cross-cultural research needs
to be done on the probabilities of association between various kinds of groups
on the ground, patrilocal and otherwise, and the various types of Omaha
terminology. After their dispersal, the speakers of Indo-European languages
constructed many large houses and "palaces," notably the Mycenaean megara
and the great halls of northern Europe.
The house types of the PIE homeland fall sharply into two halves: the
small huts just described and the multichambered long houses of Tripolye
and Danubian I. Archeologists generally assume that the Tripolye culture
was matrilocal and matrilineal, but this is actually a hypothesis that remains
to be tested by the new techniques currently being developed by Dietz,
Binford, and others for inferring social structure from artifacts. The particu?
lar material traits could perfectly well have meshed with patrilocal extended
families; the "female figurines"?even one per room as in Tripolye?no
more prove matriliny than do ikons of the Virgin Mary. European archeolo?
gists generally feel that the remarkable Tripolye culture was not Indo-
European, but others, including the present writer, think that they might
have been occupied by one stock such as the Slavs; despite the repeated
invasion and intrusive migration of alien peoples, the Slavs have since the
dawn of history repeatedly reoccupied and repopulated the Ukrainian and
Cossak steppe. In addition, the Common Slavic kinship terminology includes
certain unique innovations involving affinal and consanguineal affiliation
through women, that may reflect culture contact with a non-Indo-European
people.
This brings us to the single affinal term that implies a linking wife rather
than a linking husband: syVHr, the wife's brother. This term, like those for
the avunucular-nepotic dyad and the husband's brother's wife, is of singular
signiflcance for the historical theory here being developed. In the type of
Omaha system which PIE appears to have had, a single powerful term?
powerful in the sense of referring to many kin types?may comprise a wide
spectrum of referents ranging from the wife's eldest brother, to any true
brother, to some larger category that includes all her lineage brothers
(especially parallel cousins) or clan brothers, to a maximal classification that
covers all her male clansmen in her own or descending generations. Strong
solidarity and ritual obligations often link the woman and such a "brother,"
the latter "sewing together" or binding the new couple at the wedding. The
referential range of such a term can expand and contract. In later stages,
and consonant with altered social conditions, what was originally a classifica?
tory, Omaha type of "wife's brother" may be reduced to denoting only the
wife's (eldest) natural brother; or various formal derivations from the
original term may separately denote the various kin types. With these con?
siderations in mind, let us turn to the PIE syVHr.
First, the distribution is peculiar in that it is reflected in only two stocks :
Slavic and Indic. One cannot preclude borrowing between dialects during
the first half of the third millennium B.C, when the speakers were still
contiguous. Nor can one rule out the possibility that during PIE times the
adjacent Slavic and Indic "kinship idioms" constituted?with respect to this
feature at least?a special variety of the overall PIE Omaha. In the second
place, the original term is very widely reflected in the languages of the two
stocks. The Common Slavic surl has yielded forms in Serbian, Polish, Rus?
sian, and many other languages and dialects of the three divisions of Slavic.
There are two extensions in meaning: in Old Russian suric denoted the
wife's brother's son, and in Czech two distinct derivations refer to the wife's
brother's son and to his wife. Within Indic, the Vedic cognate is sya:la-h.
The /!/ in this case is the East Indic reflex of PIE /!/ or /r/ that appears
in the written form of many Sanskrit words. The u/a: correspondence
is so inconclusive?leads in such diametrically opposed directions?that I
have only postulated an unspecified nuclear vocalism.
The modern languages of India provide evidence especially interesting and
relevant to semantic analysis. Eight of these languages have a reflex that
denotes wife's brother's wife (e.g., Hindi salhaj); ten show a denotation of
wife's sister (e.g., Hindi sa:li); ten show the wife's sister's husband (e.g.,
Hindi sairhu); and almost all show additional reflexes with the presumably
basic or primary denotatum of wife's brother (Ghurye 1955: 243). These
post-Vedic extensions are exactly the residue one might expect from a
classificatory term for "wife's brother" in PIE; members of the original class
have been subdivided and assigned to formal derivations of what was once
a single kinship term. But there is no evidence that syVHr was used for
wife's father, as one would expect on the basis of Lounsbury's rule for
Omaha III whereby a linking woman's brother is lumped with her father.
Etymological and legal evidence buttresses the distributional arguments
just advanced. Thus the soundest of the various etymologies of syVHr
derives it from the PIE verbal root meaning "to sew" (as reflected in Slavic
siti), by somewhat the same reasoning that the son's wife (snwsos) was
interpreted as the linking sinew. The already noted analyzability of kinship
terms in the Caucasian languages lends credibility to these explanations,
although on the basis of our experience with living systems it seems unlikely
that even a large minority of kinship terms should be reducible to verbal
roots, and even less likely that the same root (e.g., pot- or sew-) should
underlie two or more kinship terms. More immediately germane is the fact
that in many early legal systems, such as those of Scandinavia, the brother
did play a major role: in arranging the dowry, at the wedding,
regarding
his sister's inheritance rights, protecting his sister in case of mistreatment,
and in repaying the bride-wealth on separation. In Roman law the status of
guardian over the mother and sister passed within the family from father
to son. In peasant Russia these fraternal functions were very prominent in
early times and endured in modified form well into the present century.
This type of ethnological evidence suggests that the PIE syVHr denoted
several non-elder male relatives of the wife and that
they probably had
considerable ritual and legal significance.
Chart 3 presents some of the semantic dimensions that have been discussed
above in connection with the affinal terminology. The meaning of the
symbols in the chart is as follows: A = affine(s); C = consanguine(s);
AC = consanguine of (Ego's) affine; CA = affine of (Ego's) consanguine;
Link = linking (with reference to the sex of the linking M =
relative);
male; F = female; Gen = generation (of the relative in relation to ego's
? =
generation); +, 0, senior, same, or junior generation.
Let us conclude the discussion of the affinal set by
turning to the spouse
terms. Proto-Indo-European lacks a word referring specifically or exclusively
to a spouse. Scholars have therefore thought that
gwena:, "woman," might
CHART 3
Semantic Discriminations for the Proto-Indo-European Secondary Affines
but falls into a pretty paradigm when taken together with the sounder
analyses of swe^rwHs and swesoiri
Before turning from the affinal to the consanguineal system, a few words
are in order regarding an important and functionally interrelated set of
norms and values. In the first place, there is some evidence on bride-capture.
For example, the warrior caste in ancient India had a special term for the
practice; symbolic bride-capture was an integral part of many early or
peasant wedding rites, notably among the Slavs; and it used to be a hallmark
of life in the Caucasus. One may realistically postulate that bride-capture
figured in the PIE marriage ritualism and that it may have been an occa?
sionally practiced alternative among the small and probably exogamous com?
munities of the putative PIE homeland. In other words, bride-capture is
not entirely the romantic fantasy of anthropologically nai've, nineteenth
century philologists. In the second place, there is widespread evidence of
bride-wealth, be it in frozen, archaic phrases such as the Greek term for
virgin (alphesiboia, "a girl who gets her parent a good price"), or in the
statements of ancient texts, as when Strabo reports a span of oxen as the
normal bride-price among the Indians. Such bride-wealth would have served
to compensate the girl's kin. Third, there is considerable evidence for
polygyny, reported sporadically for the Vedic royalty, the Old Persians
(Herodotus i: 115), the Achaean Greeks, the early Germans, and the Old
Norse and Old Russians. In most instances, polygyny appears to have been
an alternative that was limited to the upper strata of the society. Fourth,
most of the evidence from the epic songs, the legal texts, and the ethnological
sources indicates that the husband had strong rights over the wife; the
psychological subordination and jural obligations of the in-marrying girl
were particularly clear in the extended households of nineteenth century
peasant Armenia, Russia, Serbia, and North India. On the other hand,
certain economic rights of the woman appear to have been carefully pro?
tected and there was probably considerable individual and regional variation
in the domestic power of the wife. Fifth and last, the ethnological and
philological evidence on concubines is supported by an interesting set of
apparent cognates dredged up by Dumezil (1940: 68-69): Avestan pairi\ai
(enchantress, prostitute) and, with the meaning of concubine, Old Irish
airech-, Greek para\oitos, and Armenian hare (from pargyai, although it
may be a Sassanian loan). To conclude, all five of the kinship patterns just
sketched require further research, but the brief review has been suggestive.
Bride-capture, bride-wealth, polygyny, a strong manus mariti, and con-
cubinage, all articulate functionally with the patrilocal family and the
Omaha terminology that are being argued on other grounds.
leads one to reconstruct two forms with identical roots, genH-os and genH-r,
both of which involve the e-vocalism and which belong together in terms of
laryngeal theory. I take this to be an example of a fairly frequent coinci-
dence whereby two similar terms may denote two semantically related
ideas. In the present case, genH-os may have denoted not merely "patri?
lineal group" but more specifically the patrilineal group or groups that were
linked through marriage to that of the speaker. Consonant with such an
interpretation, genH-r may have denoted that member of the group or
groups who was functionally the most salient?the group member mar?
ried to the daughter of the speaker. But it must be remembered that there is
no direct evidence in any of the daughter stocks for the hypothesis that
genH-os denoted something as specific as a uxorilaterally linked patrilineage.
Some suggestion of how PIE speakers conceived their patrilineal group?
ings comes from two etymologies that closely parallel one another. First, the
genH- root is related in sound to a second set that means two discrete but
polysemously related things: (i) "to give birth, generate, geminate," and
(2) "knee, link," etc. (both having the form gon-, gen-). In the second
place, PIE (s)f(we/ol appears to have denoted both "to grow" and, by a
second set, "member, knee," as reflected in Greek \01lon, "member," and
\01lem, "backbone," and s\elos, "shank." In Common Slavic \oleno meant
"knee, stem, offspring." In short, the PIE peoples, like many Central Asiatic
tribesmen, may have conceptualized their families, lineages, and clans as
metaphorical parallels to the human body or a tree, in which kinship statuses
and subgroups functioned as knees, elbows, branches, members, etc.
I would conclude that the evidence indicates patrilineal descent. First, the
Proto-Indo-Europeans probably behaved in a manner that produced aggre-
gates of people related through men, and, second, they seem also to have
had a patrilineal ideology, an explicit, consciously articulated system for
reckoning descent. The culture probably had bilateral kindreds as well, but
matriliny only is attested among the Lycians of Asia Minor.
The terms for secondary and tertiary consanguines?blood relatives linked
to the speaker by one or two intervening relatives?lend indirect support to
the hypothesis of patriliny in PIE times. In some instances, e.g., certain
Vedic passages, the father term was extended to include the father's brother.
And on purely linguistic grounds the PIE term for the latter (pHtrwos)
should be interpreted as a derivation from the former (pHteir), or both
are derived from one common antecedent. In other words, the avuncular
terminology was probably "merging" in pre-PIE times. But the bulk of the
evidence makes it yet more probable that during much of the PIE period
the father was differentiated from the father's brother. In three stocks there
is a distinct if obviously derivative term for the latter: father's brother is
pitrvya in Vedic, patrois in (Pindaric) Greek, and patruus in Latin. In yet
two other stocks the same derivation is less simple but etymologically rather
sound: Zend tuiirya and Common Slavic stryjl (Vey 1931; Mikkola 1908-
09: 65). The very complexity of these etymologies increases the probability
that within PIE itself there was a terminological-conceptual distinction
between the father and his brother. In those stocks which lack a reflex of
CHART 4
Evidence on Proto-Indo-European nepoit- and awyos
other stocks; the third grouping is highly congruous with a developed system
of patrilineal descent. I would conclude that awyos in PIE, or at least in
several dialects of PIE, denoted a set of older men in the mother's patrigroup.
This conclusion is supported by the fact that the postulated awyos category
was linked to its logical reciprocal; in Old Irish the form (h)aue denoted
not an avuncular but a nepotic or grandchild category. In some medieval
Germanic dialects the same term for uncle (e.g., oiheim) or for nephew
(e.g., neffe) occurs in texts with the reference of either mother's brother or
sister's son; that is, either term could be used by either relative for his alter.
But further inquiry is called for by the argument of Schrader (1904: 15)
that this reciprocal usage actually postdated Old High German; oiheim
itself is a secondary formation possibly based on a folk etymology, since
-heim is a distinct root.
On the basis of the Hittite huhhavs, Kuryowicz (1935: 74) has argued
rather convincingly that the Pre-PIE term had an initial laryngeal; this
squares phonologically, since /h/ or zero are the Hittite reflexes of the second
laryngeal, which yields PIE /a/, and /hh/ corresponds to the third laryngeal,
which yields PIE /o/. Austin (1942: 22) has derived both the PIE and
Hittite forms from Proto-Indo-Hittite xauxos, but this is contested. These
and other factors argue for the extreme antiquity of the term and concept in
question. Interestingly enough, however, awyos is not directly reflected in
the kinship terminologies of either of our major sources of evidence: Homer
and the Rigveda.
The PIE awyos category was completely paralleled by the nepotic cate?
gory; nephews and nieces were apparently classed down wards with grand?
sons and granddaughters as nepot- and neptyH-. Both the avuncular and
nepotic categories overrode the distinctions of generation and degree of
collaterality. In Germanic, Latin, Slavic, and Keltic there is evidence that
the downward classification of the nepotic kin specifically involved the
sister's (as against the brother's) son and daughter. This is illustrated by Old
High German nevo, by the nefa and nift of Old English, and finally by Old
Irish niae and necht. Such a grouping of a man's sister's children with his
grandchildren is the logical reciprocal of grouping the mother's brother with
the grandfather. As Delbruck (1889: 504) put it, "Ich nehme also an, dass
die Bezeichnung nepotes von dem dvos ausging. Ist dieser der mutterlicher
Grossvater, so sind die nepotes ihm gegeniiber Enkel, ist er Oheim, so sind
sie ihm gegeniiber Neffen."
This kind of equation is diagnostic of Omaha systems found in many parts
of the world. More particularly, it illustrates Lounsbury's Omaha III skew-
ing rule, which equates relatives linked through a man's sister and his
daughter; it also illustrates the corollary to this rule, which equates a
linking woman's brother with her father. However, the evidence, though
encouraging, is not conclusive that PIE exemplified the yet more fully
developed type of Omaha system wherein only the mother's (but not the
father's) father and only the daughter's (but not the son's) children are
lumped, respectively, with the maternal uncle and sister's children. In such
a case, the avuncular category refers clearly to older men in the mother's
We have now discussed the immediate family, the affines, the avuncular-
nepotic set, and patriliny. The fifth and final problem is the PIE cousins.
First, the cousin term is comparatively unimportant in many ancient texts,
such as Homer, where anepsios is mentioned only five times. Second and
more significant, a morpheme for cousin cannot be reconstructed for PIE,
nor even for some of the daughter languages such as Common Slavic.10 This
alone would suggest that cousin types were classed with other relatives, in
various possible ways, some of which should be considered. For example,
all the cousins to a given degree may have been lumped with the siblings
(with maybe an adjective attached to the sibling term, as in modern Rus?
sian) ; the PIE roots for brother and sister are in fact based on nearly perfect
correspondences of form and meaning in nearly all stocks, as would be
consonant with, although not necessarily generated by, a classificatory sys?
tem in which the terms for primary consanguines were extended to col?
laterals.
A second possibility, suggested by Balkan data, is that the father's brother's
children were classed with siblings, while the cross-cousins were classed with
spouses, and the mother's sister's children were excluded altogether from the
kinship domain. In Latin, too, the father's brother's children were types of
siblings (frater or soror patruelis), as against the mother's siblings children
(consobrinus, -a) and the father's sister's (amitinus, -a). A particular affinity
or classificatory grouping of the father's brother's children with one's own
siblings cannot simply be assumed, however. In many patrilineal societies,
conflicts over inheritance and the succession to authority combine to make
the connection with such parallel cousins either ambivalent or marked by
hostility, as has in fact been argued for the Vedic Aryans, where bhratrvya
may have denoted both "parent's (primarily father's) brother's son" and also
"rival, enemy."
I would conclude that the most likely grouping of cousins was of the
Omaha type. That is, consonant with the Omaha avuncular and nepotic
groupings, all parallel cousins may have been classed with siblings, while
cross-cousins were ranked asymmetrically upward and downward in the
Omaha fashion. The maternal cross-cousins would be ranked with the
mother's brother and the mother (or mother's sister), just as the mother's
brother was grouped with the mother's father as awyos. By the same token,
the father's sister's children would be ranked downward with the sister's
children, just as the sister's children appear to have been classed downward
with the grandchildren. Despite the negative quality of the evidence, and
the stress on pattern congruity, this third hypothesis has the highest prob?
ability, in part because it fits most logically with the avuncular-nepotic evi?
dence, in part because it appears that Omaha avuncular-nepotic sets are
associated with Omaha cousin terminology about half the time, although
the exact statistics await further research. Moreover, in the putative home?
land area many tribes such as the Kalmyk Mongols have asymmetrical
cousin sets of the Omaha variety. The hypothesis of Omaha cousin termi?
nology is also strengthened by the external evidence on patriliny. But all
these alternatives must be entertained with caution; the PIE problem raises
once again the obvious point that Omaha systems are more fruitfully and
realistically conceptualized in terms of a network of variables rather than of
any one trait such as the cross-cousin terminology.
The foregoing considerations bring up a subject of considerable interest in
light of contemporary theory (Levi-Strauss 1949; Homans and Schneider
1955), namely, the possibility of cross-cousin marriage in the culture of the
PIE speakers. I will not here discuss marriage with the father's "sister's"
daughter because it is so unlikely as the dominant or prescribed form in
conjunction with patriliny (Needham 1962: 101-121). On the other hand,
cross-cousin marriage with the mother's "brother's" daughter is often articu?
lated with a system of patrilineal descent and must be given serious attention.
Such cross-cousin marriage, whether preferred or prescribed, tends to be
associated with certain terminological equations; for example the mother's
brother's daughter may be equated with the wife, the mother's brother with
the wife's father, and so forth. Yet there is no positive evidence that awyos
was used for the wife's father. Nor is there evidence that snwsos was used for
a (woman's) niece, nor that the term for sister's son (nepoit-) was
used for son-in-law, nor that the term for son-in-law (genHr) was used for a
nephew. In fact, there is no positive evidence for any of the groupings that
are typically associated with matrilateral cross-cousin marriage. The negative
picture is summarized below (from the point of view of a male speaker).
i. MoSi^FaBrWi 5. SoWi^WiBrDa
2. MoSiHu^FaBr 6. SoWi ?- BrDa
3. MoBr ?= WiFa 7. SoWiFa ?? WiBr
4. MoBrWi ?> WiMo 8. DaHu ?- SiSo
lateral type?with either the fathers sister's daughter or the mother's brother's
daughter. But the case for such "simple exchange" is equally poor in terms of
the anticipated groupings. Furthermore, the strength of the set for "in-laws"
and the absence of specific terms for the grandparents argue strongly against
a cross-cousin system (Hocart 1925: 201). The Proto-Indo-European termi?
nology, though classificatory, is not of the cross-cousin type. I am led to con-
clude that preferred or prescribed cross-cousin marriage was absent, and that
recent Marxist theorizing on the subject is untenable.11
Conclusions
NOTES
understanding is that all the PIE terms have been cross-checked in Delbriick, Pokorny,
Vasmer, Trubachev, and other sources.
6. Goody (1959) has spaded through Morgan (1871) and found that of 137 kinship
terminologies only 13 were reported without giving a term for the wife's father. But,
as he partly suggests, the reportage on affinal terms is so poor in Morgan?and indeed
many other sources?that we often cannot rely on such tests." Goody has performed
a valuable service in at least raising the question of the "sociological reality" of the
so-called "patriarchal family," a question the answer to which is frequently obscured
by the widespread confusion, especially by philologists, of succession, descent, and
inheritance.
7. This is illustrated by the remarkable resemblance of snwsos to South Caucasian (e.g.,
Mingrelian nosa and Laz nusa), as reported in Trubachev (1959: 32); such formal
similarities may reflect early borrowing from Slavic and Iranian through the sort of
bilingualism and intermarriage that still marked relations between the Great Russian
Terek Cossaks and the Northwest Caucasian Chechen in the last century (Tolstoy
1863: 160).
8. Lumping the sister's and daughter's husband is typical of Omaha systems where
the unilocal residential group is dominant, as against those where the unilineal descent
group is dominant and the sister's and father's sister's husband are lumped; I regard
this as a major dimension in the typology of Omaha systems. As White (1939: 567-568)
has cogently written, the family and clan are "rivals, competitors, so to speak, in the
game of relative classification." In this gameful rivalry the family and clan were almost
equal in PIE kinship.
9. Isachenko (1953) argues that nepois originally meant cross-grandnephew, i.e., a
man's sister's grandchildren or a woman's brother's grandchildren. This follows from
his general approach, which is to postulate an Australian type of system with cross-
cousin marriage, and then to explain the evidence accordingly. He leans heavily on
Morgan and Thompson (and on Stalin, Engels, and other non-obvious authorities),
while totally ignoring the relevant social anthropology that has been appearing since
the turn of the century (aside from off-hand allusions to "ill-tempered" attacks by
"bourgeois ethnographers" such as A. L. Kroeber). Isachenko's use of Indo-European
scholarship also leaves much to be desired. Nonetheless, he does raise some interesting
points. The most important (Isachenko 1953: 60-61) concerns the suffix -ter, -tor,
analytically distinguishable from the agentive suffix. Isachenko claims that -ter/-tor
appears in the kinship terms for those relatives who would be grouped together under
matrilocal residence and cross-cousin marriage classes: mother, father, brother, daughter,
and husband's brother's wife. Aside from certain linguistic problems, the argument
advanced does not explain why brother is included in the matrilocal group, while the
sister, sister's husband, and daughter's husband (genHr), are not. The husband's
brother's wife (ynHteir) could equally well belong in the -ter "in-group" under a
system of patrilocal residence and patrilineal descent. Isachenko was more or less
followed by Trubachev, with many specific reservations and, of course, a more massive
and valuable documentation.
10. About the PIE cousins, the opinion of Delbriick (1889: 506) was: "Hierbei hort
die Gemeinsamkeit der Bezeichnungen vollig auf. Ich kann daher nur einen Uberblick
iiber die Tatsachen der Einzelsprachen geben . . . darf man wohl schliessen, dass
Vettern und Cousinen in der Urzeit sich als Briider und Schwester bezeichnet haben."
11. Notwithstanding Thompson (1949: 80-83), who illustrates the aprioristic use of
negative evidence in conformity with Marxist dogma perhaps nowhere more revealingly
than in his arguments about the Greek sibling terms, adelphos, -e:, which, because they
are clearly analyzable as "from the same womb," are cited as strong evidence for
matriliny. Actually, they are late formations, and clearly former modifiers which have
assumed nominal functions. In earlier times an adjective was used with the sibling
term in order to set off monomatric siblings because, for example, the incest taboos
were different for them, as we know from Greek legal history. Homeric Greek had
additional terms for the children of sisters. With the decline of extended patrilineal
categories and the increasing importance of immediate relatives and the bilateral
family, the former adjectives came to be used for siblings, and the original sibling
terms survived only in compounds. In sum, the transition was from phra:te:r (clan
brother), to adelphos phra:te:r (monomatric brother as against other kinds of
"brother"), to adelphos (true brother).
Miller (1952-53), whom I take to be another member of the British school of Greek
matriliny, has constructed an ingenious argument that (Pre-) Homeric Greek kinship
operated with three matrilines with the men circulating and the women marrying their
father's sister's son. Aside from matriliny, Miller's key assumption is that recurring
proper names indicate a kinship group, that is, marriage categories. He is able to
account very well for the otherwise anomalous ten-generational genealogy of Odysseus.
However, the data he cites?and particularly the Autolykos category in Odysseus'
genealogy?can be accounted for just as elegantly by assuming matrilateral cross-cousin
marriage and three intermarrying patrilines. The full implications of this exciting
internal evidence for a patrilineal alliance system in Pre-Homeric Greece certainly
requires further study. It may be possible to demonstrate that the proto-Greeks and
Homeric Greeks combined definite feminalateral groups with patrilineal descent and
descent groups. Rose (1925: 121-124), writing of the early Romans, makes a weak case
for restricted exchange between two or at least a small number of patriclans.
On the other hand, a possibly matrilineal or even "matriarchal" system for Pre-PIE
cannot be dogmatically excluded, if only because of the time lapse between the second
half of the third millennium B.C, when Greek and Italo-Celtic split off and began
moving south and west while Indo-Iranian moved eastwards, and the first evidence of
Homer and the Vedas about a thousand years later. If we go back to Proto-Indo-
Hittite the time span reaches almost two millennia, during which a matri-system could
have passed away. Lounsbury has recently elucidated the close logical affinity between
Omaha and Crow systems, and Eggan has reported very rapid transitions from one to
the other.
Without the external evidence for various patterns, the PIE nomenclature could be
accounted for by the minimal assumptions of bilateral descent, extended patrilocal
families, and marriage between distant, exogamous communities such that the couple
was sharply separated from the wife's family.
In the same connection, be it noted that we do not need to assume uniformity in the
Omaha kinship of the dialects and regions of the PIE people. In the kinship as in the
phonology of Indo-European, the comparative method strongly suggests that the
parent language was composed of various dialects. Sousberghe and Robles Uribe (1962),
doing synchronic work on contemporary Tzeltal, have shown (implicitly) how different
parts of an Omaha network can be differently realized in different communities of the
same tribe.
For an attempt to debunk evolutionary interpretations of Omaha systems, on the
basis of a statistically oriented and almost entirely synchronic analysis of a single system,
see Tax (1955).
BIBLIOGRAPHY
1904. Griech. vivc, vioc, vlvoc, und ai. sunus got. sunus. Indogermanische
Forschungen 17: 483-491
- 1907. Nuos, nurus, snusa und die griechischen und italienischen Femina auf -os.
Indogermanische Forschungen 21: 315-322.
Buck, C. D. 1949. A Dictionary of Selected Synonyms in the Principal Indo-European
Languages: A Contribution to the History of Ideas. Chicago.
Childe, V. G. 1926. The Aryans. London.
- 1958. The Dawn of European Civilization. New York.
Cottrcll, C. 1965. Changes in Crow Kinship. M.A. thesis, University of Chicago.
Crossland, R. A. 1957. Indo-European Origins: The Linguistic Evidence. Past and
Present 12: 16-46.
Delbriick, B. 1889. Die Indogermanischen Verwandtschaftsnamen: Ein Beitrag zur
vergleichenden Altertumskunde. Leipzig: Abhandlungen der Koniglichen Sachs-
ischen Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften 11: v, 380-606.
Dittenberger, V. 1885. Die cleusinischen Keryken. Hermes XX: 1-40.
Dumezil, G. 1940. Series etymologiques armeniens. Bulletin de la Societe de Lin-
guistique de Paris 41: 68-69.
Eggan, F. 1934. The Maya Kinship System and Cross-cousin Marriage. American
Anthropologist 36: 188-203.
- 1937. Historical Changes in the Choctaw Kinship System. American Anthro?
pologist 39: 34-53.
- 1955. The Social Anthropology of North American Tribes. Chicago.
Ernout, A., and A. Meillet 1951. Dictionnaire etymologique de la langue latine. 3d. edit
3V. Paris.
Friedrich, J. 1952. Hethitisches Worterbuch. Heidelberg.
- 1959. Die hethitischen Gesetze. Leiden.
Friedrich, P. 1963. An Evolutionary Sketch of Russian Kinship. Symposium on Lan?
guage and Culture: Proceedings of the 1962 Annual Spring Meeting of the
American Ethnological Society, ed. W. L. Chafe and V. E. Garfield, pp. 1-26.
Seattle.
- 1964. Semantic Structure and Social Structure: An Instance from Russian.
Explorations in Cultural Anthropology: Essays in Honor of George Peter
Murdock, ed. W. H. Goodenough, pp. 131-166. New York.
Ghurye, G. S. 1955. Family and Kin in Indo-European Culture. Bombay.
Gimbutas, M. 1956. The Prehistory of Eastern Europe, pt. 1. Cambridge, Mass.
- 1960. From the Neolithic to the Iron Age in the Region between the Vistula
and the Middle Dnieper Rivers: A Survey. International Journal of Slavic Lin?
guistics and Poetics 3: 1-12.
- 1963. The Indo-Europeans: Archeological Problems. American Anthropologist
65: 815-837.
Goodenough, W. H. 1956. Componential Analysis and the Analysis of Meaning. Lan?
guage 32: 195-216.
- 1963. Review of Matrilineal Kinship, ed. D. M. Schneider and K. Gough
American Anthropologist 65: 923-928.
Goody, J. 1959. Indo-European society. Past and Present 16: 88-92.
Grammont, M. 1924. L'interversion. Streitberg-Festgabe, pp. 111-118. Leipzig.
Griffith, R. T. H. 1897. The Hymns of the Rigveda. Benares.
Gummere, F. B. 1901. The Sister's Son. An English Miscellany (Presented to F. J.
Furnivall), pp. 133-150. Oxford.
Gurney, O. R. 1961. The Hittites (revised). Baltimore.
Hignett, C. 1952. A History of the Athenian Constitution to the End of the Fifth Cen?
tury B.C. Oxford.
Hocart, A. M. 1925. The Cousin in Vedic Ritual. Indian Antiquary 54: 16-18.
- 1928. The Indo-European Kinship System. Ceylon Journal of Science 1: 179-204.
Homans, G. C, and D. M. Schneider. 1955. Marriage, Authority, and Final Causes: A
Study of Unilateral Cross-Cousin Marriage. Glencoe.
Homer. 1960-63. The Iliad (2V.); The Odyssey (2V.). A. J. Murray. Cambridge, Mass.
Vey, M. 1931. Slave st- provenant de i.-e. *pt-. Bulletin de la Societe de Linguistique de
Paris 32: 65-67.
Vinogradoff, P. 1900. Geschlecht und Verwandschaft im altnorwegischen Rechte.
Zeistchrift fiir Sozial- und Wirthschaftsgeschichte 7: 1-43.
White, L. A. 1939. A Problem in Kinship Terminology. American Anthropologist 16:
569-570.