On the Reconstruction of the Proto-Nostratic Kinship System Per Hage ‘Department of Anthropology, University of Utah, 270 $ 1400 E RM 102, Salt Lake City, Utah 84112, USA Abstract. Nostratic theory claims that six major language families—Indo-European, Afro-Asiatic, Kartvelian, Uralic, Altaic and Dravidian—belong to a single macrofamily dating to 15,000 BC with a homeland in southwestern Asia. Nostratic theory, if true, would have major implications for archaeology and anthropology. For archaeology, Proto-Nostratic would represent the Upper Paleolithic-Mesolithic world of hunter-gatherers before the development of farming and the agricultural dispersals in Europe and western Asia. For anthropology, Proto-Nostratic would represent the earliest known kinship system, ‘one which was ancestral to the later systems of Proto-Indo-European, Proto-Dravidian and other major language families. This paper has two aims. The first aim is to show that the data in Dolgopolsky/’s controversial kin term reconstructions, properly interpreted, point to an elementary system of bilateral ‘cross-cousin marriage with exogamous descent groups. The second aim is to contribute to the theoretical framework for reconstructing Nostratic and, by implication, other “deep-time” kinship systems. In particular, it is shown how the recognition of marking effects and normal processes of semantic fragmentation can overcome gaps and apparent inconsistencies in available kin term data, [kinship, theory, Nostratc, historical reconstruction, evolution] The Nostratic hypothesis claims that a group of six major language families — Indo- European, Afro-Asiatic, Kartvelian, Uralic, Altaic and Dravidian — belong to a single macrofamily or phylum dating to 15,000 BC with a homeland in southwestern Asia. ‘The hypothesis is based on the reconstruction of more than 2,300 roots and grammatical morphemes using the comparative method of historical linguistics Illich-Svitych 1971— 84; Dolgopolsky 1973). In 1998, Aharon Dolgopolsky published, with the McDonald Institute of Archaeology, a brief work on Nostratic linguistic paleontology in which he reconstructed salient features of Nostratic habitat, economy and kinship organizatio1 ‘As Renfrew (1998) emphasized in his introduction to Dolgopolsky’s monograph, Nostratic theory, if true, would have major implications for world prehistory. Proto- Nostratic “would represent the world of the Upper Paleolithic or Mesolithic hunte:- gatherer apparently prior to the inception of a farming economy” (Renfrew 1998:cvi), and prior to the agricultural dispersals of speakers of Proto-Indo-European from Anatolia, Proto-Afro-Asiatic from the Levant, Proto-Elamo-Dravidian from Southwest Linguistic paleontology, defined as “the whole doctrine of making cultural inferences from linguistic evidence” (Anttila 1989:373). Zeitechrife fir Ethnologie 128 (2003) 311-325, © 2003 Dietrich Reimer Verlag,312 Zeitschrift fr Ethnologie 128 (2003) Iran, Proto-Kartvelian from the South Caucasus and Proto-Altaic from Tarkmenia.? Nostratic theory would also have major implications for anthropology. Dolgopolsky’s kin term reconstructions would represent the earliest known kinship system —an Upper Paleolithic- Mesolithic system which was ancestral to later, lower level systems of Proto- Indo-European (Friedrich 1966), Proto-Dravidian (Trautmann 1981), and other language families.’ Concurrent with the publication of Dolgopolskys monograph, a conference of linguists undertook a critical evaluation of Dolgopolsky’s Nostratic reconstructions (Renfrew and Nettle 1999). Comrie (1999) examined the kin terms and firmly rejected Dolgopolsky’s reconstruction of an exogamous moiety system in Nostratic, arguing instead that Dolgopolsky’s reconstructions point to an “in-law system’. Thave a double aim. The first aim is to show that Dolgopolsky’s kin term data, properly interpreted, support the reconstruction of an elementary system of bilateral cross-cousin marriage with either exogamous clans or moieties. The second aim is to contribute to the theoretical framework for reconstructing Nostratic, and by implica- tion, other “deep-time” kinship systems. In particular, I show how the recognition of ‘marking effects and normal processes of semantic fragmentation can overcome gaps and apparent inconsistencies in available kin term data. ‘The Nostratic macrofamily ‘The Nostratic macrofamily, as defined in Dolgopolsky (1998), includes Indo-European, Afro-Asiatic [Hamito-Semitic] (Semitic, Egyptian, Berber, Cushitic, Omotic and Chadic), Kartvelian (in the South Caucasus), Uralic (Finno-Ugric, Samoyed, Yukagir), Altaic (Turkic, Mongolic, Tangu, Korean and Japanese) and Dravidian (see Map 1). Some linguists regard Afro-Asiatic as a sister rather than a daughter family of Nostratic (Shevoroshkin and Manaster Ramer 1991) while others have added more families to Nostratic (Kaiser and Shevoroshkin 1988). Nostratic overlaps Greenberg's (1998, 2000) convergent hypothesis of an Eurasiatic macrofamily consisting of Indo-European, Uralic, Altaic, Gilyak, Korean-Japanese-Ainu, Chucotian and Eskimo-Aleut. Part of the difference may be due to the fact that Nostraticists prefer to work with already reconstructed proto-languages. In other publications, Dolgopolsky included Eskimo- 2 Bellwood (2000) suggests a correlation berween Natufian culture and Proto-Nostratic and Proto- Afiro-Asiatic. ?- For population geneticists Nostratic theory would provide a remarkable example of parallelism between genetic and linguistic trees (Cavalli-Sforza et al. 1988; Cavalli-Sforza et al. 1994; Cavalli-Sforza 2000) ‘The combination of historical linguistics, archaeology and population genetics may represent a new synthesis in the study of human prehistory (Renfrew 1992; Rublen 19872). * See Dolgopolsky (1999) on the justification for including Afro-Asiatic, Dravidian and Kartvelian in the Nostratic macrofamily.Per Hage: On the Reconstruction of the Proto-Nostratic Kinship System 313, Aleut, Gilyak and Chucotian in Nostratic (Greenberg 2000:8-9). ‘The case is not unlike Indo-European in which comparative studies were undertaken before all Indo- European languages had been identified. For present purposes we shall use Dolgo- polsky’s (1998) definition of Nostratic, Others may be able to expand our kinship analysis. Starostin (1999), for example, in his evaluation of Dolgopolsky’s reconstruc- tions gives Sino-Caucasian cognates of Nostratic kin terms. Map 1 The Nostratic macrofamily: (1) Altaic; (2) Afro-Asiatic; (3) Indo-European; (4) South Caucasian (Kartvelian); (5) Uralic; (6) Dravidian (from Renfrew 1998). Critics of Nostratic (Dixon 1997; Kaufman 1990; Matisoff 1990) assume that it is not possible to reconstruct proto-languages earlier than about 4,000 BC (coincidentally, a presumed date of Proto-Indo-European) because the rate of phonological and semantic change would erase all evidence of historical relationships. But, as Ruhlen (1987a:76— 7) makes clear, “after 6,000 years everything does not change beyond recognition. Indo-Europeanists have reconstructed the Proto-Indo-European word for ‘nephew’ as *népot- and this root has passed down into modern Rumanian as nepor, a form virtually identical to the word the Indo-Europeans used around their campfires 6,000 years314 Zeitschrift ft Exhnologie 128 (2003) ago. Numerous other examples could be cited to show that this notion that everything changes beyond recognition after 6000 years is simply false” 5 According to Dolgopolsky Proto-Nostratic words for ‘fig tree’ "PibrE, ‘leopard’ *SiwVngE, ‘snow *SunU imply a subtropical (warm temperate) homeland. Proto- Nostratic words for ‘saline earth, desert’ *Sah()bV and ‘cold season, rain’ *2dlwA and the absence of words for ‘sea’ imply, more specifically, an inland southwestern Asian homeland. It is unknown whether Nostratic words for ‘cereals’ refer to wild or domesticated varieties but the absence of words for ‘sowing’, ‘plowing’, ‘husbandry’, ‘pottery’ (as opposed to basketry *ko?¢|cV) imply the absence of agriculture. Proto- Nostratic words for game animals, e.g. ‘antelope’ *gurHa, ‘wild sheep/goats’ *y/gawV, ‘fish’ *do TgiFfu ‘(mul-, black) berries’ *marfy]Vimply a Paleolithic economy. Nostratic words for anatomy and inner organs common to humans and animals, e.g. ‘jugular vertebra, neck’ *#iKa, ‘spleen’ */e]az|ia suggest the importance of hunting. In the absence of reliable chronological methods in historical linguistics (lexicostatistics and glottochronology) (Renfrew, McMahon and Trask 2000), the actual date of Nostratic could be earlier than 15,000 BC. The most that one can say at present is that Nostratic is pre-Neolithic. Nostratic kin terms Dolgopolsky infers the presence of an exogamous moiety system in Nostratic on the basis of five kin term reconstructions. The terms together with representative reflexes from different Nostratic subfamilies are as follows (numbered as in Dolgopolsky 1998:84-90). 109. *halulii ‘a member of the other exogamous moiety’. Afro-Asiatic: Semitic *kall-at ‘daughter-in-law, bride’, Mchri ‘bride, bridegroom’? Kartueliam: Georgian kal-i ‘woman’ ‘daughter’ (CemilSemilmisi) kal-i ‘mylyour/his wife’; Indo-European *glow- ‘brother's wife’; Uralic: pre-Proto-Uralic *hali; Altaic *kilin, Dravidian: Northern Dravidian *kalli female relative-in-law’. According to Dolgopolsky (1998:87) “che meanings ‘bridegroom,’ ‘male relative-in-law’ are demonstrably secondary and > ‘The other criticisms of Nostratic are borrowing (loan words) chance similarities and limited attestation (‘reaching down”). For clear and incisive answers to these criticisms see Dolgopolsky (1999), Kaiser and ‘Shevoroshkin (1988), and Manaster Ramer etal. (1998) among others. See also Baxter (1998) on the use of improper statistical methods in the evaluation of Nostratic. © For Proto-Nostratic terms I have used, where possible, the simpler phonological symbols in Starostin (1999). 7 Possible East Cushitic and Chadic reflexes of “hud are given in Dolgopolsky’s forthcoming Nostratic dictionary (Dolgopolsky 1999).Per Hage: On the Reconstruction of the Proto-Nostatic Kinship Sytem 315 are due either to broadening of meaning (by eliminating the semantic clement of female sex) or to back formations (as in Harsusi)”. 110. *éida ‘a man of the other moiety’. Uralic *kitdii; Altaic: Turkic kiida-git ‘younger sister's husband, daughter's husband’, Mongolic *guda ‘father of one’s son- in-law or daughter-in-law (in pl: ‘the heads of two families related through the marriage of their children’); Kartvelian *kwiss-al-l kwi$wife's sister's husband’. 111. *5é5A ‘a relative of the other moiety’ (‘father/son-in-law’, ‘mother’s brother’ and sim.). Kartvelian *sige- ‘son-in-law’; Afro-Asiatic: East Cushitic *sVz ‘relative-in- law’. Uralic *cetd ‘uncle’ > Finnish setd ‘father's brother’. Samoyedic *cicd ‘mother’s younger brother’. According to Dolgopolsky (1998:88) “in the prehistory of Uralic ‘we may suppose an assimilation and dissimilation of sibilants: *Segd > **Cecd > *Cet’a”. 112. *{h|xVJwari|nV ‘relative [of a younger/the same generation] of the other moiety’. Affo-Asiatic. Egyptian bwn ‘boy, young man, child, son’; Uralic *waNV > Finno-Ugric *wénit ‘daughter's husband’, ‘younger brother’, Samoyedic *wiinb ‘relati- ve-in-law’; Altaic: Tangusic *bene ‘wife's sibling’; ?? Dravidian *vanna ‘(eldet) brother's wife’ > Kolami vanna ‘brother's wife’, ? Kondi oni id., ‘maternal uncle’s daughter (older than person concerned)’. Possibly a Prakrit loan. 113. *7|thu|#SV ‘woman (general term)’ ‘woman of the other moiety’. Afro-Asiatic: Semitic *niX(- ‘woman (pl. and pl. endings only); Cushitic: Proto-Agaw *ns-at‘woman’; Kartvelian *»usa ‘son's wife’; Indo-European *snuso-s ‘son's wife’. Comrie accepts, for the sake of argument, most of Dolgopolsky’s kin term reconstructions but he objects that none of them are evidence for a moiety system. On the contrary, “all of the relevant terms from attested languages point to an in-law system” (Comrie 1999:249). We need to clarify the distinction between two funda- mentally different types of kinship systems. A prescriptive (Parkin 1997) or elementary (Lévi-Strauss 1969) kinship system is based on a rule of cross-cousin martiage, either bilateral (marriage with the mother’s brother's daughter = father’ sister’s daughter) or matrilateral (marriage with the mother’s brother's daughter). A prescriptive system is defined by two types of kin term equations: (1) classificatory equations which equate same sex siblings and (2) prescriptive equations which equate affines (in-laws) and cross-consanguines consistent cousin marriage. In the case of a bilateral cross-cousin or Dravidian marriage system the equations are as follows:* arule of cross- © ‘The following abbreviations arc used in these equations and in the text: P parent, F father, M mother, G sibling, B brother, Z sister, C child, S son, D daughter, E spouse, H husband, W wife, ss same sex as go, 08 opposite sex from ego, FL father-in-law, ML mother-in-law, SL. son-in-law.316 ‘eitschift fur Echnologie 128 (2003) in the +1 (parent's) generation: MB = FZH=EF F-=FB=MZH FZ=MBW-EM M-=MZ-FBW in the 0 (ego's) generation: MBD = FZD = W=WZ=BW Z-=FBD =MZD MBS = FZS = HB SH_ B= FBS = MZS in the -1 (childs) generation: osGD =SW ssGD=D osGS = DH ssGS = S A non-prescriptive or complex system, in Comrie’s terms an “in-law” system, such as our own, prohibits cross-cousin marriage and lacks prescriptive equations. ‘An exogamous moiety system is a prescriptive system of bilateral cross-cousin marriage in which a rule of descent — patrilineal or matrilineal - sorts individual kin relations into two named groups (moieties). Although early kinship theorists — Morgan, Tylor, Frazer — derived bilateral cross-cousin marriage from exogamous moieties, the presence of the former does not depend on the presence of the latter (see Lévi-Strauss 1969, Ch. 9, The marriage of cousins). The kin term equations — classificatory and prescriptive — are the same in both cases. The key to the reconstruction of the Proto-Nostratic kinship system is term 111 *8¢3A ‘relative of the other moiety’ (‘father/son-in-law, mother’s brother’). ‘The term implies the presence of bilateral cross-cousin marriage and would be consistent with the presence of exogamous patrilineal moieties. This is the only Proto-Nostratic reconstruction that specifically equates affines (in-laws) and cross-consanguines. But, as Comrie observes, *zA denotes affines in some Nostratic languages and consanguines in others — FL in Afro-Asiatic, but MB in Uralic. This might seem to be a case of excessive semantic latitude in historical reconstruction, but it is more reasonably interpreted as a case of semantic fragmentation. A parallel to the Nostratic case is found in Blust’s (1980) reconstruction of Early Austronesian kin terms. As Blust has demonstrated, the inferred meaning of a lexical reconstruction “may exhibie ‘semantic’ fragmentation in its reflexes — that is a separation and retention of simpler components of an originally complex meaning” (1980:207). Blust gives the example of Proto-Malayo-Polynesian terms for ‘northwest and southeast monsoon’. The [Proto-Malayo-Polynesian] forms *Sabarat and *timuR are reconstructed with the meanings ‘northwest monsoon’ and ‘southeast monsoon’ respectively, but in a number of attested languages reflexes of these terms have come to be associated with the cardinal directions or have acquired other meanings. Even if the meaning ‘southeast monsoon’ were not directly attested for reflexes of timuR, however, this meaning might still be inferred from the surviving components in, for example, Tagalog témor, Palauan dimos ‘south, south wind’, Malay simur ‘east’, Timugon Murut simug ‘water’ and Samoan simu ‘rainy’ (Blust 1980:207).Per lage: On the Reconstruction ofthe Proto-Nostratic Kinship System 317 ‘A similar case of semantic fragmentation is shown in Blust’s reconstruction of Proto- ‘Austronesian kinship terminology. According to Blust, Proto-Austronesian *ma(nJtugaS is the best candidate for the meaning of both MB and WE. The fragmentation of this complex (prescriptive) term in reflexes from different Non-Oceanic Austronesian languages is illustrated in Table 1 (from Blust 1980). In the Oceanic languages reflexes of * ma(n)tugaS mean MB. It is inferred from Table 1 that in some languages reflexes of *ma(n)tugaS became generalized as well as fragmented to include both parallel and cross-uncles ~ FB and MB — and all parents-in-law. TABLE 1. Reflexes of Proto-Austronesian *ma(n)tugaS in Non-Oceanic Austronesian Languages (fom Blust 1980). Formosa Bunun mastithas (-s- unexpl.) ‘eSb? Philippines Balangingi Samal matd?a ‘WE, WM, HE, HM’ Borneo ‘Mukah tud?‘MB, FB, MZH, FZH’; metua ‘WE, WM, HE HM’ Dalat tua? (‘MB, MZ, FB, EZ’; mentua “WE, WM, HE HM’ Singhi tue ‘MyB, MyZ, FyB, FyZ’; tua damuch WE, WM, HE, HM’ Bdamang mantuba? “WE, WM, HE, HM’ Dusun Deyah matuo ‘MeB, FeB, MeZH, FeZH” Malay Peninsula Malay mentu(h)a, mertua “WE, WM, HE, HM? Mergui Archipelago Moken toka “WE WM, HE, HM’; toha ‘MB, MZ, FB, FZ’ Sumatra Toba Batak si-matua ‘WE, WM, HE, HM’ Nias matua ‘WE, WM? Minangkabau mintuha “WE, WM, HE, HM’ Bali Balinese memen matua WM, HM’; nana matua ‘WE, HF’ ‘The analogous case for the fragmentation of Proto-Nostratic *SeA is shown in Table 2. We note that the Kartvelian and some of the Afio-Asiatic reflexes of *S3A also mean SL, implying that *$egA was a self-reciprocal term for MB/FL and SL.318 ‘Zcitscheift fur Ethnologie 128 (2003) TABLE 2. Reflexes of Proto-Nostratic *s¢3A in Nostratic Languages (from Dolgopolsky 1998). Kartvelian ‘SL *sige Georgian sige- ‘bridegroo: Megrelian si(n)3a ~ sinda id., ‘bridegroom’ Laz sifa-id., ‘bridegroom Svan &1%'SL. ‘Afro-Asiatic (Cushitic: East Cushitic *sVé ‘relative-inlaw Somali séddog “FL, séddéh ‘ML. Rendille seyyoh ~ soyyob - seyyh FL: Proto-Boni *siddah °ME,, ‘ZL Boni siddah ~ soddéh id., “in-law? Oromo sodd-a ‘in-law’ Arbore soddd id., sob id, ‘SL? Gollango sogo ‘SL Egyptian s3-ty Kind, Zégling’ Unalic *éeta ‘uncle? Finnish seca FB 2Estonian (dial.) sedi ‘MB’ Proto-Lappish *eécé ‘FB’ South Lappish sjiedsie ‘FyB” Lule-Lapp sjichtie, sjabrit “FyB’ Norw. Lapp decce ‘FyB’ Kildin Lapp ieee ‘FyB Erzya Mordvin die ‘eBL (ZH)’ Moshka Mordvin ava ~ Sava ‘MM’, Sita ‘MF Proto-Cheremis *2iito - *€etsi ‘MB’ Lowland Cheremis did ‘MB’ East Cheremis Giucé - saci “MB Proto-Permian *€32MB" Zirene éoz'ME° Letka and Udor Zirene God “MF Voytak eudomurt id., Cuzbub ‘ME’ Lower Konda and Sosva Vogul 848 ‘uncle? Sosva Vogul sasiy ‘uncle’ Pelinka Vogul 23%-m ‘my uncle? Samoyedic *cicd ‘MyB’ Oborsk dial cide ‘MyB Neganasan (det.) r+tida ‘MyB" Taz Sélqup ticta ‘MyB’ Note: “In the prehistory of Uralic we may suppose an assimilation and dissimilation of sibilants: ~ *st3A > **CecA > *Ceta” (Dolgopolsky 1998:88).Per Hage: On the Reconstruction of the Proto-Nostratic Kinship System 319, ‘The semantic fragmentation of the Proto-Austronesian and Proto-Nostratic terms for FL and MB is consistent with world historical theories of kinship which take as their starting point a Dravidianate (elementary or prescriptive) cross-cousin marriage system. (Lévi-Strauss 1969; Allen 1986, 1989, 1998; Kryukov 1998). In the evolution away from the Dravidian pole complex prescriptive terms break up into their separate affinal and cross-consanguineal components, e.g. FL and MB. The process of semantic fragmentation is not unique to the Austronesian and Nostratic or to elementary kinship systems. In his reconstruction of the Proto-Indo- European kinship system as Omaha in type based on inter-generational kin term skewing and patrilineal descent groups, Friedrich (1966) showed that the “true structural keystone” of the system is the Proto-Indo-European term *awyos ‘MB/EM, a set of older men in the mother’s patrigroup’. In some linguistic stocks reflexes of *awyos mean ‘MF’, e.g. Lycian xuga, in other stocks the reflexes mean MB, e.g. Lithuanian avynas, and in still other stocks the reflexes mean both MF and MB, e.g. Old English eam. In Latin avus meant PF (usually MF) while avunculus meant little grandfather, MB. Friedrich concludes that Proto-Indo-European *awyos meant both MB and MF consistent with an Omaha Type III kinship system which equates a linking woman's brother with her father (Lounsbury 1964). ‘We infer by analogy with the Austronesian case and consistent with universal theories of kinship evolution that Proto-Nostratic *sgA meant MB/FL implying a Dravidian system of cross-cousin marriage. Dolgopolsky’s remaining Proto-Nostratic kin term reconstructions (with reflexes variably present in Nostratic languages) are as follows. 114. *Hid\exV ‘father, head of a family’ 115. *ediNV ‘pater familias 116. *Zema ‘mother’ 117. *7{dlyV ‘mother’ 118. “aba - apa ‘father 119. */AbloglltV ‘child’ 120. *?arV ‘member of the clan’ Comrie objects that terms 116-118 may be nursery words not indicative of historical relationship. The consonants “m” and “p” and the vowel “2” as the first sounds learned bya child, are commonly used in “mama” and “papa” words and may become referential kin terms for “mother” and “father” (Jakobson 1960). However, as Ruhlen (1987b) observes, since roughly half of the world’s languages do not use these sounds to designate patents, apparent nutsery terms may in fact be historically related. Whichever terms were used for parents in Proto-Nostratic, set 114-115 or set 116-118 or both sets but in different contexts, the significant fact is that a prescriptive kinship terminology has classificatory equations of the type F = FB MB. Classificator y (bifurcate merging)320 Zeitechrife fr Exhnologie 128 (2003) equations are cross-culturally strongly associated with the presence of unilineal — patrilineal or matrilineal — descent groups (Murdock 1947; Hage 1998). Proto-Nostratic or its ancestor probably had exogamous, unilineal descent groups.” Terms 114 *Hi¢leyV “father, head of family’ and 115 *ZdiNV ’pater familias’ imply patrilineal descent groups. Discussion ‘The foregoing analysis raises a number of theoretical questions concerning the evolution and reconstruction of kinship systems. 1. Do prescriptive terminologies imply a rule of cross-cousin marriage? Most kinship theorists accept the fact of an historical or logical relationship between the two (Fox 1967; Lévi-Strauss 1969; Trautman 1981; Allen 1989, 1998; Parkin 1997). Scheffler (1971) is virtually alone in denying a relation between Dravidian terminologies and cross-cousin marriage citing as evidence cognate Dravidian systems in South India and Sti Lanka which prefer or prohibit one type of cross-cousin marriage, MBD or FZD, as opposed to another. But as Trautmann (1981) observes, these variations call for an historical analysis. As Trautmann also shows, Scheffler’s semantic analysis of Dravidian terminologies presupposes a rule of cross-cousin marriage. Needham (1973) cautioned that terminology and marriage rules should be kept separate as a matter of operational procedure but not as a matter of principle (Parkin 1997). In general, kinship terminologies outlast social institutions (Murdock 1949; Fox 1967) so it should not be surprising to find that some prescriptive terms remain after cross-cousin marriage has disappeared. If the time lag is great, prescriptive terms may live on in a semantically fragmented state as in Nostratic. 2. Do prescriptive kin term equations differ in diagnostic value? Certain equations obviously have greater diagnostic value than others. For example, the equation FZH = MBs said to be compatible with either a prescriptive (Dravidian) or a non-prescriptive (Iroquois) type of kinship system (Trautmann and Barnes 1998), but the equation MB = EE as in Nostratic, only makes sense in a prescriptive (cross-cousin) marriage system. Given this difference and given cross-culturally demonstrated implicational universals in kinship terminologies (Hage 2001), one or two equations may be sufficient to reconstruct the basic type of a kinship system. Our reconstruction of the Proto- Nostratic kinship system as prescriptive in type turns on the term *s3A ‘FL/SL, MB’ just as Friedrich’s (1966) reconstruction of the Proto-Indo-European kinship system as Omaha in type turns on the ‘true structural keystone’ term *awyos ‘MB/FM’. A closer analogy, pethaps, is Foster's (1949) reconstruction of cross-cousin marriage in pre-contact Zoque society on the basis of a single pair of self-reciprocal terms: sep MBW = 2 HM and sep han 2 SW = 2 HZD. > Unilineal descene groups are generally exogamous at some level (lineage or clan).Per Hage: On the Reconstruction of the Proto-Nostratic Kinship System 321 3. Is the general trend in the evolution of kinship systems away from the Dravidian- tetradic pole as Allen (1998) argues? Trautman (2001) has expressed doubt on this score, pointing out that Dravidian kinship systems are found at different stages of political and economic development. His strongest argument against a “one-way street” leading away from Dravidian is the strongly areal character of kinship systems. Dravidian kinship systems are not found in Europe, the Near East and Africa. If our reconstruction of Nostratic is correct a Dravidianate system was ancestral to systems in Europe (Indo-European), the Near East and northern Africa (Afro-Asiatic). It now appears that Dravidian systems were also present in equatorial, Bantu-speaking, Africa (Hage nd). It is known from documentary and historical linguistic evidence that many early kinship systems were based on a rule of cross-cousin marriage including Chinese (Feng 1937), Tibeto-Burman (Benedict 1941), Early Austronesian (Blust 1980), Proto- Algonquian (Hockett 1964; Wheeler 1982), Proto-Athapaskan (Krauss nd), Proto- Keres (Fox 1995) and Ancient Maya (Eggan 1934; Hage 2003). It would not surprise if Proto-Nostratic were added to this list. 4, Why do kinship terminologies evolve unevenly? In Dolgopolsky’s reconstruction of Proto-Nostratic kinship terminology, there are no terms for cross-cousin and hence no prescriptive equations of the type MBD = FZD = WZ = BW. The presence of a term for cross-uncle (MB) and the absence of a term for cross-cousin in Proto-Nostratic is predictable from Greenberg’s (1990[1980]) theory of implicational universals in kinship systems. Cross-culturally, the presence of genealogically more remote, lower generation cross-cousin terms (marked) implies the presence of genealogically closer, higher generational cross-uncle terms (unmarked) but not conversely. Diachronically interpreted, in the devolution of elementary kinship systems cross-cousin terms are lost before cross-uncle terms (Hage 2001). Such is the case in a number of Dravidian kinship systems in South India which have given up the practice of cross-cousin marriage (Trautmann 1981). We assume that Proto-Nostratic, or its ancestor, had cross-cousin terms which, on the basis of present evidence, are no longer reconstructable. The absence in Dolgopolsky’s reconstruction of a term for FZ = ML and of prescriptive terms for -1 generation relations may be similarly interpreted. If male is the unmarked category in a kinship system as Dolgopolsky assumes for Nostratic (one’s own patrilineal moiety is said to be unmarked), then the presence of a term for FZ implies the presence of a term for MB but not conversely. Diachronically interpreted, the term for FZ is lost before and less reconstructable than the term for MB. Such was the case in the evolution of Oceanic kinship terminologies (Hage and Marck 2001). In Greenberg's theory of kinship universals, the first ascending generation is unmarked with respect to the first descending generation. The presence of a term for MB/EF but not for osGC/CE in Proto-Nostratic is consistent with this marking principle.322 Zeitschrift fir Echnologic 128 (2003) 5. Should historical linguistic approaches to kinship be replaced by regional analysis as Trautman (1981, 2001) advocates? The answer should be no on two counts. (1) As in linguistics (Greenberg 1987) areal analysis presupposes genetic analysis. How else could the effects of borrowing be known? (2)'The comparative method of historical linguistics provides the anthropologist with a powerful tool for reconstructing kinship systems. The purely typological models proposed by Trautman have no way of establishing the direction of a proposed evolutionary sequence. Grand theories of kinship evolution such as Allen’s (1998) tetradic theory can be tested, at least indirectly, by the reconstruction of kinship systems in different language families and macro- families. Conclusion ‘We conclude contrary to Comrie’s critique that the data in Dolgopolsky’s reconstruction of Proto-Nostratic kin terms support the inference of a system of bilateral cross-cousin marriage probably with unilineal, (patrilineal) exogamous descent groups — clans or moieties. The kin term equation of Proto-Nostratic *séZA ‘FL = SL = MB’ implies such a system and could hardly be interpreted otherwise. The semantic fragmentation of this term in different Nostratic languages reflects a normal process in the breakup of complex prescriptive kin terms. From the perspective of world historical theories of kinship evolution (Lévi-Strauss 1969; Allen 1986, 1989) the Proto-Dravidian kinship system of South India, which is defined by a rule of bilateral cross-cousin marriage (Trautmann 1981), would represent a continuation of an elementary Nostratic system. The Proto-Indo-European kinship system which is Omaha in type based on the prohibition of cross-cousin marriage, would represent an evolutionary development away from the Nostratic system. Since Omaha-type systems are derived from elementary cross-cousin marriage systems and not conversely (Lévi-Strauss 1969; Allen 1986; Fox 1995), some society ancestral to Proto-Indo-European must have had an elementary kinship system, Nostratic would be the logical candidate. AAs Allen (1989) remarked in another context, no one imagines that kinship systems began with an Omaha type. ‘The purpose of this paper is to evaluate Dolgopolsky’s reconstruction of the Proto- Nostratic kinship system from the point of view of kinship theory. Ieis up to linguists to evaluate the Nostratic hypothesis. Dolgopolsky’s monograph was not intended as a proof of the Nostratic hypothesis, but only, as the title states, as a study in Nostratic linguistic paleontology. In Dolgopolsky’s view the proof of the Nostratic hypothesis was already given over 30 years ago by Illich-Svitych (1971). Many linguists remain unconvinced or apathetic and many of the criticisms of Nostratic theory are hostile or dismissive, needful, as Renfrew (1999) put it, of “more interrogatory mood”. In onePer Hage: On the Reconstruction of the Proto-Nostratic Kinship System 33 of the more objective assessments of Nostratic, Trask (not a Nostraticist) concludes that the hypothesis is testable and “deserves to be taken seriously”. Rejecting all appeals to casual resemblances, no matter how numerous, [Nostraticists} accept as data only the best available reconstructions for items in the six proto-languages which they regard as daughters of PN [Proto-Nostratic]; they usually posit PN etyma only for forms found in at least three of those six (this is called Meillets principle after the great French linguist who proposed it); and most importantly, they insist upon the identification of systematic correspondences and of regular phonological developments in all branches (Trask 1996:390). Ifthe Nostratic hypothesis, or some version of it convergent with Eurasiati, is confirmed and if Dolgopolsky’s kin term reconstructions are valid, then the historical development of many of the world’s kinship systems could be approached from the top down as well as the bottom up. An example may be given. In his comparative study of the Dravidian kinship systems in South India Trautman (1981) reconstructs the Proto- Dravidian system as elementary in type based on a rule of bilateral cross-cousin marriage complete with the +2/-2 alternate generation equations characteristic of tetradic and Kariera systems but “missing” in the reconstruction of the Proto-Nostratic system. In attempting to go beyond Proto-Dravidian, Trautmann refers to a “dilemma brought on by the lack of coordination between historical linguistics and ethnography”: If ethnography points eastwards [towards Southeast Asia, Oceania and Australia] for the extra-Indian affiliates of Dravidian kinship, it docs so with no assurance that its morphological comparisons have an historical basis; whereas if we follow the historical linguists we shall look westwards {Finno-Ugrian, Elamite) for the origins of the Dravidian with, on the face of it, little reason to hope that we shall find there systems of kinship clearly related to it (Trautmann 1981:237). Dolgopolsky’s reconstruction of the Proto-Nostratic kinship system points westwards. References Allen, N. J. 1986: Tetradic Theory: An approach to kinship. Journal of the Anthropological Society of Oxford 1787-109. Allen, N. J. 1989: The Evolution of Kinship Terminologies. Lingua 77:173-85. Allen, N. J. 1998: The Prehistory of Dravidian Type Terminologies. In: M. Godelier, T. Trautmann and E Tjon Sie Fat (eds.), Transformations of Kinship. Washington DC: Smithsonian Institution, pp. 314-31. Anttila, R. 1989: Historical and Comparative Linguistics. Amsterdam/New York: Benjamins. Baxter, W. H. 1998: Response to Oswalt and Ringe. In: J. C. Salmon and B. D. Joseph (eds.), Nostrati: Sifting the evidence. AmsterdamPhiladelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 217-36. Bellwood, P. 2000: The Time Depth of Major Language Families. In: C. Renfrew, A. McMahon and L. Trask (eds.), Time Depth in Historical Linguistics. Cambridge: McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research, Vol I, pp. 109-40, Benedict, P K. 1941: Tibetan and Chinese Kinship Terms. Harvard Journal of Asiatic Studies 6313-37.324 Zeitschrift fr Ethnologie 128 (2003) Blust, R. 1980: Early Austronesian Social Organization. Current Anthropology 21:205-47. Cavalli-Sforza, L. L. 2000: Genes, Peoples, and Languages. New York: North Point Press. Cavalli-Sforza, L.L., A. Piazza, 2. Menozzi and J. Mountain 1988: Reconstruction of Human Evolution: Bringing together genetic, archaeological and linguistic data. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 89:5620-24, (Cavalli-Sforza, P, Menozai and A. Piazza 1994: The History and Geography of Human Genes. Princeton: Princeton University Press. ‘Comrie, B. 1999: Nostratic Language and Culture: Some methodological reflections. In: C. Renfrew and D. Nettle (eds.), Nostmatic: Examining a linguistic macrofimily. Cambridge: McDonald Instiute for Archaeological Research, pp. 243-55. Dixon, R. M. W. 1997: The Rise and Fall of Languages. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Dolgopolsky, A. 1973: Boreisch-Ursprache Eurasiens? Ideen des exakten Wissens, Wissenschaft und Technik in der Sowjetunion 73:29-30. Dolgopolsky, A. 1998: The Nostnasic Macrofamily and Linguistic Paleontology. Cambridge: McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research. Dolgopolsky, A. 1999: The Nostratie Macrofamily: A short introduction. In: C. Renfrew and D. Nettle (eds), Nostratie: Ecamining a linguistic macrofamily. Cambridge: MeDonald Insticute for Archaeological Researchm, pp. 19-44. Eggan, F. 1934: The Maya Kinship System and Cross-cousin Marriage. American Anthropologist 3:188— 202. Feng, H. ¥. 1937: The Chinese Kinship System. Harvard Journal of Asiatic Studies 2:141-275. Foster, G. M. 1949: Sierra Populuca Kinship Terminology and its Wider Relationships. Southwestern Journal of Anthropology 5:330-44. Fox, R. 1967: Kinship and Marriage. Harmondsworth: Penguin Books. Fox, R. 1995: The Evolution of Kinship Systems and the Crow-Omaha Question. In: The Challenge of Anthropology. New Brunswick: Transaction Press, pp. 215-43. Friedrich, P, 1966 Proto-Indo-European Kinship. Ethnology 5:1-36. Greenberg, J. H. 1987: Language in the Americas. Stanford: Stanford University Press. Greenberg, J. H. 1990[1980]: Universals of Kinship Terminology. In: K. Denning and S. Kemmer (eds.), (On Language. Stanford: Stanford University Press, pp. 31027. Greenberg, J. H. 1998: The Convergence of Eurasiatic and Nostratic. In: J.C. Salmon and B. D. Joseph (cds), Nostratic: Sifting she Evidence. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 51-60. Greenberg, J. H. 2000: Indo-European and its Closest Relatives. Stanford: Stanford University Press. Hage, P. 1998: Prote-Polynesian Kin Terms and Descent Groups. Oceanic Linguistics 37:189-92. Hage, P. 2001: Marking Theory and Kinship Analysis: Cross-cultural and historical applications. “Anthropological Theory 1:197-211. Hage, P2003: The Ancient Maya Kinship System. Journal of Anthropological Research 59:5~21. Hage, P. nd: Dravidian Kinship Systems in Africa. Hage, P. and J. Marck 2001: The Marking of Sex Distinctions in Polynesian Kinship Terminologies. ‘Oceanic Linguistics 40:156-66. ‘Hockett, C. F. 1964: The Proto-Algonquian Kinship System. In: W. H. Goodenough (ed.), Explorations in Cultural Anthropology. New York: McGraw-Hill, pp. 239-57. IMlich-Svitych, V. M. 1971-84: Opyt Sravmenija Nostraticheskix Jazykov, 3 vols. Moscow: Nauka. Jakobson, R. 1960: Why ‘Mamd and ‘Papa? In: L. R. Baugh and M. Monville-Burston (eds.), On Language. (Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press, pp. 305-11. Kaiser, M. and V. Shevoroshkin 1988: Nostratic. Annual Review of Anthropology 17:309-29. Kaufman, T. 1990: Language History in South America: What we know and how to know more. In: D. L. Payne (ed.), Amazonian Linguistics. Austin TX: University of Texas Press, pp. 13-73. Krauss, M. nd: The Proto-Athapaskan and Eyak Kinship Term System,er Hage: On the Reconstruction ofthe Proto-Nostatic Kinship System 325 Kryukov, M. V. 1998: The Synchro-diachronic Method and the Multidirectionality of Kinship Trans- formations. In: M. Godelier, T. Trautman and F. Tjon Sie Fat (eds.), Transformations of Kinship. ‘Washington DC: Smithsonian Institution, pp. 294-331. Lévi-Strauss, C. 1969: The Elementary Structures of Kinship. Boston: Beacon Press. Lounsbury, FG. 1964: A Formal Account of Crow and Omaha Type Kinship ‘Terminologies. In: W. H. Goodenough (ed.), Explonations in Cultural Anthropology: Essays in honor of George Peter Murdock. New York: McGraw-Hill, pp. 351-93. ‘Manaster Ramer, A., P. A. Michalove, K. S. Baertsch and K. L. Adams 1998: Exploring the Nostratic Hypothesis. In: J. C. Salmons and B. D. Joseph (eds.), Nostratic: Sifting the evidence. Arnsterdam/ Philadelphia: Benjamins, pp. 61-84. Matisoff,J. A. 1990: On Megalocomparison. Language 66:106~20. Murdock, G. P. 1947: Bifurcate Merging: A test of five theories. American Anthropologist 49:56~-68. ‘Murdock, G. P. 1949: Social Structure. New York: MacMillan. Needham, R. 1973: Prescription. Oceania 42:166-81. Parkin, R. 1997: Kinship. Oxford: Blackwell. Renfrew, C. 1992: Archaeology, Genetics and Linguistic Diversity. Man (n.s.) 27:445-78. Renfrew, C. 1998: Introduction to A. Dolgopolsky, The Nostratic Macrofamily and Linguistic Paleontology, ‘Cambridge: McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research, pp. 7-22. Renfiew, C. 1999: Nostratic as a Linguistic Macrofamily, Introduction to: C. Renfrew and D. Nettle (cds.), Nestratic: Examining a linguistic macrofamily. Cambridge: McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research, pp. 3-18. Renfrew, C., A. McMahon and L. Trask 2000: Time Depths in Historical Linguistics, 2 vols. Cambridge: ‘McDonald Institute of Archaeology. Renfrew, C. and D. Nettle (eds.) 1999: Nestratic: Examining a linguistic macrofamily. Cambridge: McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research. Ruhlen, M. 1987a: The Origin of Language. New York: Wiley. Rublen, M. 1987b: On the Origin of Languages. Stanford: Stanford University Press. Scheffler, H. 1971: Dravidian-Iroquois: The Melanesian evidence. In: L. R. Hiatt and C. Jayawardena (cds.), Essays Presented to lan Hoghin. Sydney: Angus and Robertson, pp. 231-54. Shevoroshkin, V. and A. Manaster Ramer 1991: Some Recent Work on the Remote Relations of Languages. In S. M. Lamb and E. D. Mitchell (eds.), Sprung from Some Common Source. Stanford: Stanford, University Press, pp. 178-99. Starostin, S. A. 1999: Subgrouping of Nostratic: Comments on Aharon Dolgopolsky’s The Nestratie Macrofamily and Linguistic Paleontology, C. Renfrew and D. Nettle (eds.). Cambridge: McDonald. ‘Axchacological Institute, pp. 137-56. ‘Trask, RL. 1996: Historical Linguistics. New York: St. Martins Press. ‘Trautmann, T. R. 1981: Dravidian Kinship. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ‘Trautmann, T. R. 2001: The Whole History of Kinship Terminology in Three Chapt Morgan and after Morgan. Anthropological Theory 1:268-87. ‘Trautman, T. R. and R. H. Barnes 1998: ‘Dravidian’, ‘Iroquois, and ‘Crow-Omaha’ in North American Perspective. In: M. Godelier, T. Trautman and F Tjon Sie Fat (eds.), Transformations of Kinship, ‘Washington DC: Smithsonian Institution, pp. 27-58. ‘Wheeler, C. J. 1982: An Inquiry into the Proto-Algonquian System of Social Classification and Marriage: “Apossible system of symmetric prescriptive alliance in a Lake Forest Archaic culture during the third millennium BC. Journal of the Anthropological Society of Oxford 13:165-74. Before Morgan,