East Papuan kinship systems: Bougainville.

East Papuan kinship systems: Bougainville. In a review of the Melanesian evidence Scheffler (1971:251)concluded that there were no reliable reports of Dravidian-type kinshipsystems in New Guinea, and by implication in Papuan-speaking Melanesia.None of the candidates Scheffler examined had Dravidian as opposed toIroquois crossness and neither did they have a consistent pattern ofDravidian prescriptiveness. From the perspective of a universal theoryof kinship which assumes a 'patchy' retention of aDravidian-like prototype (Allen 1989a, 1998), it is unexpected not tofind any Dravidian-type kinship systems, so well known from Australiabut also from many other regions of the world (Godelier et al. 1998),(2) in the Papuan societies of Melanesia. The purpose of this paper is to compare four Dravidian-type kinshipsystems in Papuan-speaking societies of South Bougainville in theSolomon Islands. These systems, two of which were first reported in1910, by R. Thurnwald, and in 1912, by Rausch, were overlooked inScheffler's survey and have not entered into recent world-widecomparative studies of Dravidian kinship (Godelier et al. 1998). TheProto-South Bougainville kinship was Dravidian-Kariera in type. Itdates, uncertainly, to sometime before the Austronesian expansion intoMelanesia around 1500 BC and sometime near or after the settlement ofEast Papua 30,000 to 40,000 years ago. Dravidian kinship systems mayhave been common in East Papua, surviving in Bougainville because of theisland's relative size and isolation. DRAVIDIAN KINSHIP SYSTEMS A Dravidian kinship system is defined by two properties consistentwith a rule of bilateral cross-cousin marriage. The first property,which is lacking in an Iroquois system, is a pattern of prescriptiveequations which include in the +1 level: MB = FZH = EF [not equal to] F = FB = MZH MZH Mehrzweckhochhaus (University of Bremen, Germany)MZH Moose Lake Carlton County Airport FZ = MBW MBW Moorabbin Airport (Victoria, Australia)MBW Marine Barracks Washington (Washington, DC, USA)MBW mad black womanMBW Managing by WireMBW Managing by Walking = EM [not equal to] M = MZ [not equal to] FBW (Fixed Broadband Wireless ) See fixed wireless. in the 0 (ego's) level: MBD MBDmethylene blue dye bindng test. See sabin-feldmann dye test.MBDMinimal brain dysfunction, see there = FZD FZD Flood Zone Determination (banking, insurance)= W = WZ = BW [not equal to] Z = FBD FBD Fluid(ized)Bed DryerFBD Fully Buffered DIMM (memory)FBD Free Body DiagramFBD Far Beyond Driven (album)FBD Functional Block Diagram(s)= MZD MBS See Mb/sec. MBS - mobile broadband services =FZS FZS Frankfurt Zoological SocietyFZS Fellow of the Zoological SocietyFZS freier zusammenschluss von studentInnenschaften eV (German: The National Unions of Students in Germany; Berlin, Germany)FZS Far Zone Scattering = H = HB = ZH [not equal to] B = FBS FBSabbr.fasting blood sugarFBSFasting blood sugar. See Fasting glucose. = MZS MZS Minimum Zone Straight Line (see LSZ) in the -1 level: osGD = SW [not equal to] ssGD = D osGS = DH [not equal to] ssGS = S Kariera kinship systems are sometimes distinguished from Dravidiansystems by the presence of alternate generation equations which implythe presence of four marriage classes (sections) (Dumont 1970). In theclassic Australian case (Radcliffe-Brown 1930:31): FF = [male] SC FM = [female] SC MF = [male] DC MM = [female] DC The second property of a Dravidian system, which also distinguishesit from an Iroquois system, is a distinctive pattern of cross-parallelclassification of remote relatives (Lounsbury 1964; Scheffler 1971). Inthe case of second cousins the children of parents' opposite sexcross-cousins are parallel while the children of parents' same sexcross-cousins are cross. Intuitively, opposite sex cross-cousins arepotential spouses and their children are therefore classified withego's siblings and parallel cousins while same sex cross-cousinsare potential in-laws and their children are classified with ego'scross-cousins (Trautmann 1981; Godelier et al. 1998). In Dravidiansystems parents' same sex cross-cousins are classified with'uncles' and 'aunts' while parents' oppositesex cross-cousins are classified 'fathers' and'mothers.' The classification of parallel and cross relativesin Dravidian is just the reverse in Iroquois. In Allen's (1986, 1989a, 1989b, 1998) universal theory ofkinship evolution a tetradic tet��rad?n.1. A group or set of four.2. A tetravalent atom, radical, or element.3. Biologya. proto-human terminology is defined byalternate generation equations, prescriptive equations andclassificatory equations. The closest real-world approximation to atetradic system is a Kariera four-section system as found in Australia.The dominant historical trend has been the loss of alternate generation,prescriptive and classificatory equations in an irreversible overlappingsequence. A Dravidian system is a formerly Kariera type system which haslost its alternate generation equations. Iroquois- and Crow-Omaha-typesystems are those which have lost their prescriptive equations; cognaticand Hawaiian-type systems are those which have lost their classificatoryequations. This sequence captures the typological changes in the SouthBougainville and, it is conjectured, in the East Papuan kinship systems. SOUTH BOUGAINVILLE KINSHIP SYSTEMS It is generally agreed that the 800 or so Papuan languages predatethe Oceanic (Oc) languages in Melanesia by as much as 50,000 years(Spriggs 1997). In Wurm's (1982) classification of the Papuanlanguages, the East Papuan Phylum phylum,in taxonomy: see classification. consists of 25 languages divided intothree families: Yele-Solomon Islands-New Britain, Bougainville andReefs-Santa Cruz (Map 1). In Ross's (2001) recent classificationbased on an analysis of pronoun sets, the Reefs-Santa Cruz languages arenot regarded as Papuan and the remaining 22 languages are divided intofive separate families; Central Solomons, Yele-West New Britain, EastNew Britain Coordinates: East New Britain is a province of Papua New Guinea, on the island of New Britain. , South Bougainville, North Bougainville--and threeisolates--Kuot, Kol, Sulka, (New Ireland and New Britain Map 1, Table1). Ross's classification implies greater diversification and hencegreater antiquity for the languages in East Papua. [ILLUSTRATION OMITTED] The island of Bougainville is about 80 miles long and 30 mileswide. There are two mountain ranges and a large alluvial plain--theGreater Buin Plain. 'Except where the mountains fall away steeplyinto the sea--as they do along the eastern and north coasts--a moat ofswamp encircles the lower slopes and isolates the beaches from habitable habitableadj. referring to a residence that is safe and can be occupied in reasonable comfort. Although standards vary by region, the premises should be closed in against the weather, provide running water, access to decent toilets and bathing facilities, heating, inland areas' (Oliver 1955:4-5). The population of Bougainville in1938 was about 35,000 (Oliver 1949). Speakers of all four South Bougainville languages--Buin and Siuai(Motuna) ('plainsmen') and Nasioi and Nagovisi('mountaineers')--had Dravidian or Kariera-type kinshipsystems. (3) In all four 'societies' descent was matrilineal mat��ri��lin��e��aladj.Relating to, based on, or tracing ancestral descent through the maternal line. ,clans or moieties were exogamous ex��og��a��my?n.1. The custom of marrying outside the tribe, family, clan, or other social unit.2. Biology The fusion of two gametes that are not closely related. , marriage was with the bilateralcross-cousin (sometimes with unilateral preferences) and residence waspredominantly matrilocal mat��ri��lo��cal?adj. AnthropologyOf or relating to residence with a wife's kin group or clan.mat . Clans were totemic named after plants andanimals. The traditional settlement pattern was probably similar to thatof Nagovisi: scattered pairs of intermarrying matrilineages (Nash 1971).All four kinship systems had, at one time in their history, alternategeneration equations and grandparent- grandchild marriages werepermitted. Nasioi A brief list of Nasioi kin terms is given in Rausch (1912). (4) Theterms, with a (Ist (company) IST - Imperial Software Technology. pers.?) possessive prefix, are displayed in astandard Dravidian paradigm (Trautmann 1981) in Figure 1. (5) Nasioi hasprescriptive terms in all three medial generations: bapapa MB, HF;bakampo FZ, MBW, HM; bamasi [female] MBD, [female] BW, bampuruna [male]ZD, [male] SW. It also has alternate generation terms which equate eldersiblings with grandparents, batata ba��ta��ta?n.A type of sweet potato having somewhat dry, bland, yellowish to white flesh, used as a staple food in many tropical countries. Also called boniato, camote. eB = FF, baramanu yB = SS, baramanayZ = SD. As Scheffler (1978:223-4) has pointed out, a number ofAustralian systems similar to the Kariera type, covertly or overtlyequate siblings with parallel grandkin, e.g. Arabana, Murawari,Wongaibon. (It is curious that Nasioi equates eZ with FM rather than MMas one would expect.) The Nasioi equation of siblings by relative agewith grandkin is paralleled in the Kariera four-section systems ofPanoan-speaking societies in South America (Kensinger 1995) and in theearly Maya kinship system (Eggan 1934; Hage 2003). [FIGURE 1 OMITTED] The Nasioi kinship system was restudied over 50 years later by Ogan(1966). More kin terms and kin types are given, e.g. nori no��ri?n. pl. no��risAn edible, dried preparation of red algae of the genus Porphyra.[Japanese.] [male] FZS,[male] MBS, WB, [male] ZH; masi [female] FZD, [female] MBD, HZ, [female]BW, but some changes are evident (Figure 2). Prescriptive equations arepreserved in the three medial generations but alternate generationequations have been lost. Ogan's Nasioi informants denied thatsibling terms could be used for grandkin (Ogan 1966:178). The threegrandchild terms have merged into a single term, nompeng, and the fourgrandparent terms have merged into two terms, kaka ka��ka?n.A brownish-green New Zealand parrot (Nestor meridionalis).[Maori kk 'grandfather,and tete 'grandmother.' [FIGURE 2 OMITTED] Buin The kinship terminology of Buin (Figure 3) was first reported by R.Thurnwald (1910) and presented by Rivers (1914a) (with supplementaryinformation provided by Thurnwald) in the History of Melanesian Society.As Rivers, who articulated the relation between Dravidian kinshipterminology and cross-cousin marriage (Rivers 1906, 1907, 1914b),observed, [Buin] nomenclature for the mother's brother and father's sister is clearly such as would arise through the cross-cousin marriage and this form of marriage will also explain the application of the terms for cross-cousins to brother- and sister-in-law (Rivers 1914b:259). (6) [FIGURE 3 OMITTED] Like early Nasioi (Rausch, Fig. 1), Buin terminology equates elderand younger siblings with grandparents and grandchildren. In Buin womencan use men's sibling terms for brothers-in-law taita [male] eB =HeB = [female] ZH, roromoru [male] yB = HyB = [female] yZH, and men canuse women's sibling terms for sisters-in-law, mamai [female] eZ =WeZ = [male] eBW, rorokei [female] yZ = WyZ = [male] yBW. Only one termis given for opposite sex cross cousin, gemuroi [female] MBS, ? [female]FZS. In an examination of R. Thurnwald's (1912) 37 genealogicaltables from Buin Perry (1914) found 14 cases of cross-cousin marriage.He also found six cases of sister exchange and one case of marriagebetween children of cross-cousins from which he inferred that the systemof cross-cousin marriage in Buin was 'disintegrating.' Thereare parallels to this process elsewhere in the world, for example inMunda and Numic kinship systems (Parkin 1992; Hage et al. 2004). (7) Nagovisi In an unpublished PhD dissertation, Nash (1971) identified theNagovisi kinship system as Dravidian or two-section in type. Nagovisi isinland and relatively isolated and for that reason was regarded by H.Thurnwald (1934), Oliver (1949, 1955) and Ogan (1966) 'as the mostlikely representative of the original South Bougainville culture'(Nash 1971:10). Nagovisi has exogamous matrilineal moieties (Eagle andHornbill hornbill,common name for members of the family Bucerotidae, Old World birds of tropical and subtropical forests, named for their enormous down-curved bills surmounted by grotesque horny casques. From 2 to 5 ft (61–152. ) which may have once been present throughout South Bougainville(Ogan 1972). In comparison to Siuai (Motuna) which became a prototype ofthe Melanesian 'Big Man' society (Sahlins 1963) rank inNagovisi was underdeveloped, women enjoyed high status (H. Thurnwald1934), and greater emphasis was placed on kinship relations (Oliver1949). In the Nagovisi, as in the early Nasioi kinship system, elder andyounger siblings are equated with grandparents and grandchildren (Figure4). Nagovisi departs from Dravidian type equations in ego'sgeneration in that opposite sex cross-cousins are called by siblingterms: mama eZ = [male] FZeD, [male] MBeD, inalamada yZ = [male] FZyD =[male] MByD, rata eB = [female] FZeS = [female] MBeS, inlaman yB =[female] FZyS = [female] MByS. Upon marriage, however, sibling terms arereplaced by affinal Af`fi´nala. 1. Related by marriage; from the same source.Adj. 1. affinal - (anthropology) related by marriageaffine terms. This innovation may have been due to theCatholic and colonial condemnation of cross-cousin marriage asequivalent to marrying a sister, or possibly to a preference for secondcross-cousin marriage (Nash 1971:236-37). There is also a purelyDravidian term which can be used by males for opposite sexcross-cousins: inobe [male] MBD, [male] FZD, [male] MMBDC MMBDC Michigan Minority Business Development Council , WyZ, [male]yBW. (Inobe also refers to DD.) According to Nash (1971:237) alternategeneration marriages, although never arranged, were permitted. Same sexcross- cousins are distinguished from siblings and parallel cousins andequated with affines in Dravidian manner: inoli [male] MBS = [male] FZS= WB = [male] ZH, inomas [female] MBD = [female] FZD = HZ = [female] BW.In Figure 4 the prefix in- is used for affines and junior kin. [FIGURE 4 OMITTED] Nash does not pose the question of Dravidian versus Iroquoiscrossness, but she gives a nurnber of kin types for remote relativeswhich attest to a Dravidian pattern, e.g. MMBD MMBD Million Barrels Per Day = FZ, MMBS MMBS Melton Mowbray Building Society (UK)MMBS Mobile Multimedia Broadcast Service = F, [male]MMBDS = [male] MBS, MMBSS = B, MMBDSS = [male] ZS, MMBDDD = D, etc.(Nash 1971:37). Many Australian languages 'scattered around thecontinent' (Dixon 2002:283-4), e.g. Arandic languages (Hale 1966),Dyribal (Dixon 1989), Arabana (Dixon 2002), Adjnjamathamha (Shebeck,Hercus and White 1973), Panyjima (Dench 1991), Murin-patha (Walsh 1976),have systems of dual and sometimes plural pronouns which classifyrelatives by alternate generations--even versus odd('harmonic' versus 'disharmonic' [Hale 1966]),moiety moiety:see clan. and kin class. In a remarkable typological parallel, the sametypes of pronominal pro��nom��i��nal?adj.1. Of, relating to, or functioning as a pronoun.2. Resembling a pronoun, as by specifying a person, place, or thing, while functioning primarily as another part of speech. systems are found in Nagovisi. Nagovisi dualpronouns 'we two,' 'you too,' 'they two), (fromNash 1971:45) are as follows. 1. nE, lE, dE: ssG, MM/[female] DC, [male] FF/[male] SC,FM/[female] SC, MF/[male] DC, H/W 2. nEnabora, lEnabora, dEnabora: FZ/[female] BC, HM/[female] SW 3. nEnamasira, lEnamasira, dEnamasira: [female] BW/HZ 4. nEnoroko, lEnoroko, dEnoroko: B/Z, PGosC, WeZ/[female] ZH,[female] FF/[male] SD 5. nEra, lEra, dEra: F/C F/CSee first coupon (F/C). , MB/[male] ZS, HF/[male] SW, WF/[male] DH,[male] ZDH/WMB 6. nEramEra, lEramEra, dEramEra: WB/[male] SZH SZH Sheikh Zayed Hospital , MFZDS, MMBDS 7. nEro, lEro, dEro: M/C M/C Machine (mechanical engineering)M/C MotorcycleM/C MiscarriageM/C Multiple ChoiceM/C Maitre de Cabine 8. nii lii, dEwo: WM/[female] DH, classificatory WMZ/[female] ZDH ZDH Zentralverband des Deutschen Handwerks (German Confederation of Skilled Crafts) 9. ninga, langa, deinga: children, strangers, those of uncertainrelationship. All dual pronominal forms in Nagovisi distinguish even (harmonic)from odd (disharmonic) generations. The unmarked forms, nE, lE, dEdesignate 'close' relatives in even (0, +2, -2) generations:same sex siblings, lineal That which comes in a line, particularly a direct line, as from parent to child or grandparent to grandchild. LINEAL. That which comes in a line. Lineal consanguinity is that which subsists between persons, one of whom is descended in a direct line from the other. relatives and spouses. Recalling that oppositesex cross-cousins are called by sibling terms, [female] FF [male] SD maybe included in category 4 as a potential marriage relation betweenalternate generations. The Nagovisi plural pronominal system (3 or more persons) similarlydistinguishes even from odd generations and also types of matrilinealrelatives (Nash 1971:46-7). 1. niladu, liiladu, dewoladu: MB+ZC, F+C, H+W+C, WF+DH+DC 2. niladuna, liiladuna, dewoladuna: MM's descendants, theirhusbands and fathers 3. ninabori, liilabori, dewolabori: EM/CE 4. ninamasigu, Iiilamasigu, dewolamasigu: HZ/BW 5. ninamEnagn, IiilamEnagu, dewolamEnagu: WB+ZH 6. ninawode, liilawode, dewonawode: B+PssGS, Z+PssGD, B+BW, Z+ZH,MP+DC 7. ninolili, Iiilolili, dewonolili: G+PssGC+FF or MMB MMB Multimedia Builder (Multimedia presentation software)MMB Middle Mouse ButtonMMB Mighty Mighty Bosstones (band)MMB Memanbetsu, Japan (Airport Code) 8. niro, liiro, deworo: MM and her matrilineal descendants 9. nirona, liirona, deworona: matrilineal relatives of indefiniterange. In Nagovisi the cyclical pattern created by alternate generationterms is paralleled by a system of personal names. According to Nash(1971:55-65) each moiety has a reservoir of 'real' names withmen named after their MMB (equivalently in an ideal moiety system theirFF) and women after their MM (equivalently their FFZ FFZ Free Fire ZoneFFZ Far-Field Zone (antennas)). Siuai (Motuna) The Siuai kinship system (Oliver 1955) is similar to the Nagovisisystem, many of the terms being obvious cognates (Figure 5). Elder andyounger siblings are merged with grandparents and grandchildren. InSiuai (and also in Nagovisi) alternate generations continueindefinitely: +1 and +3 terms are the same as are -1 and -3 terms andlikewise for +2 and +4, and -2 and -4 terms and so on. As in Nagovisi,opposite sex cross-cousins are designated by sibling terms: tata [male]eB = [female] MBeS, [female] FZeS, naramon [male] yB = [female] MByS,[female] FZyS, naramana [female] yZ= [male] MBD, nama [female] eZ =[male] FZD. In Siuai there is a preference for marriage with the MBD,the terminologically 'younger' cross-cousin. A separate termkemuroi can also be used for [male] MBD, cognate with Buin gemuroi[female] MBS, ? [female] FZS. (8) [FIGURE 5 OMITTED] Oliver (1955:256) emphasized the fit between Sinai kinshipterminology and cross-cousin marriage. He thought it would be'unwarrantedly facile' to maintain that the referents of povoi[male] MBS, [male] FZS, WB, [male] ZH, were mere homonyms and similarlyfor the referents of papa MB, FZH, HF and apu FZ, MBW, EM. In Sinai aman may marry the widow of his MMB who is terminologically equated withhis elder, cross-cousin (FZD). As in Nagovisi, alternate generationmarriages are permitted: 'a man's preferred mates among hiskinswomen (i.e. his female cross-cousins) are to be found in his own andin the second ascending generation' (Oliver 1955:274). Siuai (Motuna) apparently lacks or lost the dual pronominal systemof Nagovisi. 'Suffixes denoting dual or plural vary considerablyfrom one kinship term to another but the pronominal possessive prefixesare fairly regular for all kinship terms (except for first personsingular), and conform to the following pattern:nonni- -- our (exclusive)ne- -- our (inclusive)re- -- your (dual or plural)pe- -- their' (Oliver 1955:508). According to Nash (1971:44) the Siuai are said to have 'someof the [Nagovisi] lineal terms (nE versus nEro, etc.)' THE PROTO-SOUTH BOUGAINVILLE KINSHIP SYSTEM The Buin, Nasioi, Nagovisi and Siuai kinship systems aresufficiently similar structurally to reconstruct the PSB PSB Pet Shop Boys (band)PSB Public Service Broadcasting (radio and television)PSB Public Service Board (Vermont)PSB Public Security Bureau (China)system asDravidian-Kariera in type. Linguists will have to give the properphonological pho��nol��o��gy?n. pl. pho��nol��o��gies1. The study of speech sounds in language or a language with reference to their distribution and patterning and to tacit rules governing pronunciation.2. representations, but identical and cognate terms wouldinclude the following alternate generation and prescriptive terms: *tata: eB, FBeS, MZeS, FF. Nasioi (Rausch), Siuai, Nagovisi tata;Buin taita. *mama: eZ, FBeD, MZeD, MM. Nasioi (Rausch), Siuai, Nagovisi mama;Buin mamai. *papa: MB, FZH, HE Nasioi, Nagovisi, Siuai, Buin papa. *povoi: [male] MBS, [male] FZS, WB, [male] ZH. Siuai povoi; Buinbobei. kaamp, kampo (Nasioi), kambu (Nagovisi), apu (Siuai) FZ, MBW, HM. masi (Nasioi), mats (Buin), inomas (Nagovisi) [female] MBD,[female] FZD, HZ, [female] BW. A question arises concerning a lexical-semantic reconstruction ofthe PSB kinship system: how old is the PSB language? According to Ross(2003:312) the East Papuan languages The East Papuan languages form a hypothetical and seemingly spurious family of Papuan languages spoken on the islands to the east of New Guinea, including New Britain, New Ireland, Bougainville, the Solomon Islands, and the Santa Cruz Islands. are survivals from the Pre-Austronesian period, which were largely displaced by the Austronesianlanguages, but it is unknown whether the East Papuan languages aredescended from the initial settlers 40,000 or 50,000 years ago or fromlater migrations. According to Angela Terrill (2003:369) 'thesimplest historical scenario is that the Papuan languages spoken in theSolomon Islands today represent the remaining descendants of thelanguages either of those initial settlers, or of later, but still veryearly migrations.' Biological evidence in the form of blood grouppolymorphisms, odontometric, anthropometric an��thro��pom��e��try?n.The study of human body measurement for use in anthropological classification and comparison.an and dermatoglyphic Noun 1. dermatoglyphic - the lines that form patterns on the skin (especially on the fingertips and the palms of the hands and the soles of the feet)crinkle, wrinkle, furrow, crease, seam, line - a slight depression in the smoothness of a surface; "his face has featuressuggest that the population of Bougainville is sufficiently distinctfrom other Papuan populations and internally heterogeneous enough to beat least 10,000 years old (Friedlaender 1987). Most linguists believethat lexical reconstruction is not possible beyond time depths of 6,000or at most 10,000 years (Nichols 1997). If Terrill is right the cognatekin terms in SB languages might be explained by a late breakup of thePSB language. The four languages which comprise this family are said tobe 'closely related' (Foley 1986). Another possibility is 'internal or circular migration'which has the effect of standardizing linguistic forms. (a) In SouthBougainville internal migration was based on intermarriage in��ter��mar��ry?intr.v. in��ter��mar��ried, in��ter��mar��ry��ing, in��ter��mar��ries1. To marry a member of another group.2. To be bound together by the marriages of members.3. betweenmembers of different linguistic groups. Nash (1971) and Ogan (1972)mention marriages between Nagovisi and Siuai and between Nasioi,Nagovisi and Siuai. Some Nagovisi clans were said to have originated inSiuai. Spriggs (1997:39) observes that the low population densities ofearly Papuan populations in Island Melanesia 'would have givenpeople ample room for securing necessary marriage partners and forkeeping in touch with the wide world'. In this connection,Ogan's (1972:95) comment on the communicative function of clantotemism totemismComplex of ideas and practices based on the belief in kinship or mystical relationship between a group (or individual) and a natural object, such as an animal or plant. The term derives from the Ojibwa word ototeman, signifying a blood relationship. is relevant: 'By relating the associated phenomena oftheir native kin categories or groups, immigrants of differentlinguistic affiliation (e.g., Nagovisi, Siuai) can adjust to the Nasioimu [clan] system.' Finally, kin terms unlike other words may beespecially resistant to change. As Matthey de l'Etang and Bancel(2002:221) argue in another context, 'the massive daily repetitionof the kinship terms during childhood and youth, as well as the heavyaffective investment of the speakers toward the persons referred to bythese terms, should account for a good part of this resistance.' Whether or not some (or all) of the PSB kinship system can belexically reconstructed, the four SB kinship systems areparadigmatically Dravidian from which we infer that the structure of thePSB system was also Dravidian. EAST PAPUAN KINSHIP SYSTEMS The ethnographic record is limited but it appears that Dravidian-type kinship systems were not present in other East Papuan societies.Yele (Rossel Id.) and Baniata had only classificatory equations withgenerationally skewed Crow-type terminologies consistent withmatrilineal clans: Yele FZ = FZD = PM amama (Armstrong 1928); Baniata FZ= FZD = FZDD = PM, fiza atufe ina (Scheffler 1972). Bilua (Vella Lavella) and Savosavo also had some classificatoryequations: Bilua F = FB [not equal to] MB apa [not equal to] manai;Savosavo F = FB [not equal to] MB mau [not equal to] kulaga, S [notequal to] [male] BS zumba [not equal to] kulaga (Rivers 1914). Bilua wasHawaiianized in ego's generation with sibling terms B, kai, Zfafine (Poc *papine) extended to all cousins. Of Taulil we know only that F [not equal to] MB [not equal to] HF,qa tia [not equal to] gandi, vandi [not equal to] ga tabat (Laufer 1950)are anti-Dravidian, anti-classificatory equations. Sulka in New Britainhad matrilineal exogamous moieties (Rivers 1914b; Parkinson 1999[1907])but the kin terms are unknown. Our conjecture, however, is that Dravidian-type systems may havebeen present elsewhere in Papuan-speaking Island Melanesia. But if so,why were they preserved only in South Bougainville? One reason may bethe relative isolation of Bougainville and its status as a 'relicpopulation'. Bougainville, from a biogeographical perspective is a logical place for relic populations to persist. It is the largest of the Solomon Islands, and hence big enough to maintain long-term population distinctiveness, and, unlike New Britain, far enough away from New Guinea to escape being engulfed by population floods emanating from that natural center of dispersal (Friedlaender 1987:354). A second reason may be the underreporting of Dravidian-type kinshipsystems elsewhere in the Solomons or possibly in the Bismarcks. A thirdreason may be the Austronesianization of Papuan kinship systems inIsland Melanesia. For example, the Madak language of New Ireland isclassified as Oceanic but as Ross (1994) has shown, Madak was originallya Papuan language which shifted to an Austronesian phonological system.The Madak kinship system has matrilineal exogamous moieties (named aftertwo types of sea eagles) (Clay 1975) but the kinship terminology is not(is no longer?) Dravidian in type. The hypothesis of Dravidian-type kinship systems in East Papuaantedating the Oceanic expansion around 1500 BC would account for theoccasional presence of Dravidian-type kinship systems in Oc-speakingsocieties in Melanesia. Universal theories of kinship evolution usuallytake as their starting point a Dravidian-like system based on a rule ofcross-cousin marriage (Needham 1967; Allen 1989a, 1998; Kryukov 1998).Allen's world-historical theory assumes irreversible rightwardshifts away from the Dravidian pole as exemplified in the evolution ofthe Chinese (Feng 1937), Tibeto-Burman (Allen 1986), Algonquian (Hockett1964; Wheeler 1982), Athapaskan (Krauss 1975), Numic (Hage et al. 2004)and Maya (Eggan 1934; Hage 2003) kinship systems. In Allen's theoryleftward movements towards the Dravidian pole are explicable ex��plic��a��ble?adj.Possible to explain: explicable phenomena; explicable behavior.ex��plic assubstratum sub��stra��tum?n. pl. sub��stra��ta or sub��stra��tums1. a. An underlying layer.b. A layer of earth beneath the surface soil; subsoil.2. A foundation or groundwork.3. effects. The classic example is the adoption of a Dravidiankinship system by Indo-Aryan-speaking Sinhalese in Sri Lanka (Trautmann1981). The Proto-Oceanic kinship system is not Dravidian in type. It hasclassificatory equations, POc *tama F, FB, *matuga MB, *tina M, MZ, *ayaFZ (?), * (qa lawa) [male] ZC but no prescriptive equations (Milke 1958;Pawley 1981). (10) But Dravidian kinship systems are known from a fewOc- speaking societies in the Solomons (Guadalcanal and possiblyFlorida, Ysabel, and San Cristobal), South Vanuatu (Tanna, Aneityum,West- Futuna-Aniwa) and Fiji (Hage 2001). Linguistic and geneticevidence show considerable intermixing of early Papuan and laterarriving Austronesians (Ray 1926; Capell 1976; Ross 1994; Kayser et al.2000; Hage and Marck 2003; Terrill 2003). Although Papuan-speakers maynot have settled Vanuatu (Spriggs 1997) and did not reach Fiji theycould have continued the Dravidian kinship systems borrowed in theSolomons. If POc kinship terminology cannot be reconstructed as Dravidian intype, and if endogenous developments of Dravidian systems are nototherwise known to occur, the Dravidian kinship systems in Oc-speakingsocieties in Melanesia are most reasonably interpreted as substratumeffects. Many archaeologists would agree with Bellwood (1985) in assuming acommon origin of Australians and Papuans who settled Australasia (thePleistocene landmass land��mass?n.A large unbroken area of land.landmassNouna large continuous area of landlandmass? of Australia and New Guinea and nearby islands)from the Indo-Malaysian Archipelago [greater than or equal to] 50,000years ago. The time frame implied by the diversity of the Papuanlanguages is consistent with this date (Ross 2001). Late Pleistocenedates for archaeological sites in north coastal New Guinea, 40,000 BP(Groube et al. 1986), New Ireland, 33,000 BP (Allen et al. 1989) andBuka in the northwest Solomon Islands, 28,000 BP (Wickler and Spriggs1988) support the idea of a common Australian-Papuan origin and of anearly coastal settlement of Australasia (Bowdler 1977). Wickler andSpriggs (1988) believe that The new dates from the Kilu cave at the northern end of the Solomons [in Buka] are consistent with the developing picture of a rapid spread of modern humans out from Asia and into the New Guinea and Australian region at 40,000 BP or before ... There is no reason to believe that the earliest habitation sites in the Solomons or Bismarcks have already been located and it is likely that humans were reaching the southern end of the Solomons chain at the same time they were attaining the southern margin of the Australian continent (Wickler and Spriggs 1988:706). Did Papuans and Australians share a common Dravidian-type kinshipsystem descendants of which survived in South Bougainville, or were theDravidian systems of South Bougainville spontaneous developments fromsome unknown type of kinship system? In the first case why are Dravidiankinship systems so uncommon in Papuan societies? Here it should be notedthat Papuan and Australian kinship systems do not inhabit completelydifferent universes. In Australia, as in New Guinea, Omaha, Iroquois andHawaiianizing kinship systems are found (Scheffler 1978) as are systemsof exclusive sister exchange, i.e. the periodic (non-consecutive)repetition ofmarriages (Tjon Sic Fat 1998a, b). In the second case, what kind ofkinship system could have been ancestral to the Proto-South Bougainvillesystem? Aside from substratal effects, Dravidian systems seem to be astarting point, not an intermediate stage in kinship evolution.Logically, this starting point goes back to the evolution of humankinship systems. The origin of the Proto-South Bougainville kinship system may bemore of a mystery than a problem. For the present we can say thatcontrary to the Encyclopaedia of Papua and New Guinea (de Lepervanche,1973:16) some Papuans, like some Australians and Southeast Asians, dohave prescriptive marriage systems of the kind discussed by Levi-Strauss (1969). CONCLUSION Contrary to common belief there are reliable reports ofDravidian-type kinship systems with prescriptive equations, Dravidiancrossness and cross-cousin marriage in Papuan societies in Melanesia.The four Dravidianate systems examined belong to the four differentlanguages of the South Bougainville family: Buin, Nasioi, Nagovisi andSiuai (Motuna). These systems have interesting typological parallels toDravidian systems in Australia, including alternate generation equationsbetween siblings and grandparents and grandchildren, and dual and pluralpronominal systems which classify relatives by alternate generations,moieties and kin categories. The paradigmatic See paradigm. Dravidian structure of theBuin, Nasioi, Nagovisi and Siuai kinship systems implies that the PSBkinship system was Dravidian in type. The presence of Dravidian-typekinship systems in East Papua predating the Austronesian arrival around1500 BC would account for the occasional presence of Dravidian systemsin Oc-speaking societies in Melanesia as a substratum effect. Thelinguistic and genetic evidence shows considerable intermixing of thesepopulations. The age of the PSB kinship system is unknown but it could date tosometime near the settlement of Bougainville 10,000 or 40,000 years ago.The preservation of Dravidian kinship systems in Bougainville but notelsewhere in East Papua may be due to its relative size and isolation.The absence of Dravidian kinship systems in other East Papuan societiesshould not be taken as conclusive evidence CONCLUSIVE EVIDENCE. That which cannot be contradicted by any other evidence,; for example, a record, unless impeached for fraud, is conclusive evidence between the parties. 3 Bouv. Inst. n. 3061-62. against a Dravidian origin.There are 20 million Maya speakers, but only one small isolated society,Lacandon, living in the tropical rainforest east of Chiapas, is known tohave a Dravidian-type kinship system (Boremanse 1979). Early Mayasociety, however, was Dravidian or Kariera in type (Eggan 1934; Hage2003). Maya is a single language family but the example is none the lessinstructive.Table 1. 'East Papuan language groupings based on pronomial data(from Ross 2001).Yele- West New Britain Yele West New Britain Anem Ata (= Pele-Ata = Wasi)East New Britain Baining Taulil Butam (extinct)North Bougainville Rotokas KonuaSouth Bougainville Nasioi Nagovisi Buin (= Telei) Motuna (= Siwai)Central Solomons Bilua Baniata Lavukaleve SavosavoIsolates Kol (New Britain) Sulka (New Britain) Kuot (= Panaras) (New Ireland) NOTES (1.) It is with sadness that we acknowledge the death of ProfessorHage. While Professor Hage was not able to see publication, the paperhas required no changes other than sub-editorial ones. (2.) Including Africa (Hage 2004). (3.) Kin terms from the four North Bougainville languages are notreported as far as I know. (4.) Chinnery's (1924) lists of South Bougainville kin termsvary in reliability and completeness but they are in general agreementwith the accounts given by Rausch, Ogan, Thurnwald, Nash and Oliver. (5.) Rausch gives baramanu for Vetter and baramana for Kusine bywhich he probably means parallel cousins as there are already terms forcross-cousins. He also gives ntaramana for MZyD which is a variation ofthe term for Z, FByD and MZyD in Ogan (1966) in Fig. 3. (6.) Rivers and Thurnwald do not give the classification of CE.Thurnwald gives moka as F, FB in address and ana as M, MZ in referencebut Rivers gives moka as M, MZ, perhaps as a result of Thurnwald'spersonal communication to Rivers. (7.) Kohler (1910) also examined Thurnwald's Buin kin termdata from which he inferred a system of group marriage. (8.) More extensive applications of Siuai terms in Figure 5 aregiven in Oliver 1955, ch. 7. (9.) The concept of 'internal or circular migration' wasintroduced by Marck (2000:232) in a related context to account for theunity of languages during the 'long pause' in WesternPolynesia. (10.) Pawley (1981), following Blust (1980), accepts POc (andProto-Malayo-Polynesian) *aya FZ but with a query. Chowning (1991)rejects *aya. REFERENCES ALLEN, J., C. GOSDEN, and J.P. WHITE. 1989. Human Pleistoceneadaptations in the tropical Island Pacific: Recent evidence from NewIreland, a Greater Australian Outlier. Antiquity 63:548-561. ALLEN, N.J. 1986. Tetradic theory: an approach to kinship. Journalof the Anthropological Society of Oxford 17:87-109. 1989a. Assimilation of alternate generations. Journal of theAnthropological Society of Oxford 20-45-55. 1989b. The evolution of kinship terminologies. Lingua lingua/lin��gua/ (ling��gwah) pl. lin��guae ? [L.] tongue.lin��guallingua geogra��phica? benign migratory glossitis.lingua ni��gra? black tongue. 77:173-185. 1998. The prehistory prehistory,period of human evolution before writing was invented and records kept. The term was coined by Daniel Wilson in 1851. It is followed by protohistory, the period for which we have some records but must still rely largely on archaeological evidence to of Dravidian-type terminologies. InTransformations of Kinship. M. Godelier, T. Trautmann, and F. Tjon SicFat (eds), pp. 314-331. Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution. ARMSTRONG, W.E. 1928. Rossel Island. Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press Cambridge University Press (known colloquially as CUP) is a publisher given a Royal Charter by Henry VIII in 1534, and one of the two privileged presses (the other being Oxford University Press). . BELLWOOD, P. 1985. Prehistory of the indo-Malaysian Archipelago.New York New York, state, United StatesNew York,Middle Atlantic state of the United States. It is bordered by Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut, and the Atlantic Ocean (E), New Jersey and Pennsylvania (S), Lakes Erie and Ontario and the Canadian province of : Academic Press. BLUST, R. 1980. Early Austronesian social organization: Theevidence of language. Current Anthropology 21:205-247. BOREMANSE, D. 1979. L'alliance prescriptive et la nomenclaturede parente des Lacandon Septentrianaux. Journal de la Societe desAmericanistes 66:265-283. BOWDLER, S. 1977. The coastal colonisation of Australia. In Sundaand Sahul: prehistoric studies in south east Asia, J Allen, J Golsen& R Jones (eds), pp.205-46. Sydney: Academic Press. CAPELL, A. 1976. Austronesian and Papuan 'mixed'languages: General remarks. In New Guinea Area Languages and LanguageStudy, vol. 2, Austronesian languages. S. Wurm (ed.), pp. 527-579,Pacific Linguistic Series C-39. Canberra: Australian NationalUniversity. CHOWNING, A. 1991. Proto-Oceanic culture: the evidence fromMelanesia. In Currents in Pacific Linguistics: Papers on AustronesianLanguages in Honor of George W. Grace. R. Blust (ed), pp.43-75.Canberra: Australian National University. CLAY, B.J. 1975. Pinikindu. Chicago: University of Chicago Press The University of Chicago Press is the largest university press in the United States. It is operated by the University of Chicago and publishes a wide variety of academic titles, including The Chicago Manual of Style, dozens of academic journals, including . DE LEPERVANCHE, M. 1973. Social structure. In Anthropology in PapuaNew Guinea Papua New Guinea(păp`ə, –y . Readings from the Encyclopaedia of Papua and New Guinea. IHogbin (ed.), pp. 1-60. Melbourne: Melbourne University Press. DENCH, A.C. 1991. Panyjima. In Handbook of Australian Languages.R.M.W. Dixon, and B.J. Blake (eds), pp. 124-243. Melbourne: OxfordUniversity Press. DIXON, R.M.W. 1989. The Dyribal kinship system. Oceania 49:245-268. 2002. Australian Languages. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DUMONT, L. 1970. The Kariera kinship vocabulary: an analysis. InEchanges et Communications, Melanges offerts a Claude Levi- Strauss. J.Pouillon, and P. Maranda (eds), pp. 276-286. Paris: Mouton moutonlamb pelt made to resemble seal or beaver. . EGGAN, F. 1934. The Maya kinship system and cross-cousin marriage.American Anthropologist 36:188-202. FENG, H.Y. 1937. The Chinese kinship system. Harvard Journal ofAsiatic Studies 2:141-275. FOLEY, W.A. 1986. The Papuan Languages of New Guinea. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press. FRIEDLAENDER, J.S. 1987. Conclusion. In The Solomon IslandsProject. J.S. Friedlaender (ed), pp. 351-362. Oxford: Clarendon Press. GODELIER, M. 1998. Transformations and lines of evolution. InTransformations of Kinship. M. Godelier, T. Trautmann, and F. Tjon SieFat (eds), pp.386-413. Washington, DC: Smithouian Institution. GODELIER, M., T. TRAUTMANN and F. TJON SIE FAT. Editor. 1998.Transformations of Kinship. Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution. GROUBE, L., J. CHAPPELL, J. MUKE, and D. PRICE. 1986. A 40,000year-old occupation site at Huon Peninsula, Papua New Guinea. Nature324:453-455 HAGE, P. 2001. The evolution of Dravidian kinship systems inOceania: linguistic evidence. Journal of the Royal AnthropologicalInstitute 7:487-508. 2003. The ancient Maya kinship system. Journal of AnthropologicalResearch:5-21. 2004. Dravidian kinship systems in Africa. L'Homme (in press). HAGE, P., and J. MARCK. 2003. Matrilineality and the Melanesianorigin of Polynesian Y chromosomes. Current Anthropology, Suppl.44:121-127. HAGE, P., B. MILICIC, M. MIXCO, and M.P.J. NICHOLS. 2004. TheProto-Numic kinship system. Journal of Anthropological Research (inpress). HALE, K. L. 1966. Kinship reflections in syntax: some Australianlanguages. Word 22:318-324. HOCKETT, C.F. 1964. The Proto-Algonquian kinship system. InExplorations in Cultural Anthropology. W. H. Goodenough (ed.),pp.239-257. New York: McGraw-Hill. KAYSER, M., S. BRAUER, G. WEISS WEISS Workshop on Industrial Experience with Systems Software , E A. UNDERHILL, R. LUTZ, W.SCHIEFENHOVAL, and M. STONEKING. 2000. Melanesian origin of Polynesian Ychromosomes. Current Biology 10:1237-1246. KENSINGER, K.M. 1995. How Real People Ought to Live. ProspectHeights, IL: Waveland Press. KOHLER, J. 1910. Zu den Ausfuhrungen Thurnwald's fiber dieVerwandtschaftsnamen der Bewohner von Buin. Zeitschrift furVergleichende Rechtswissenschaft 23:365-370. KRAUSS, M. 1975. Proto-Athabaskan-Eyak Kinship Terms. Unpublishedms. KRYUKOV, M.V. 1998. The synchro-diachronic method and themultidirectionality of kinship transformations. In Transformations ofKinship. M. Godelier, T. Trautmann, and F. Tjon Sie Fat (eds),pp.294-331. Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution. LAUFER, P.C. 1950. Die Taulil und ihre Sprache auf Neubritannien.Anthropos 45:627-40. LEVI-STRAUSS, C. 1969. The Elementary Structures of Kinship.Boston: Beacon Press. LOUNSBURY, F.G. 1964. The structural analysis of kinship semantics.In Proceedings of the Ninth International Congress of Linguists. H. G.Lunt (ed.), pp. 1073-1093. The Hague: Mouton. MARCK, J. 2000. Topics in Polynesian Language and Culture History.Pacific Linguistics, Australian National University Canberra. MATTHEY DE l'ETANG, A., and P.J. BANCEL. 2002. Tracing theancestral kinship system. Mother Tongue 7:209-259. MILKE, W. 1958. Ozeanische Verwandtschaftsnamen. Zeitschrift furEthnologie 83:226-229. NASH, J. 1971. Aspects of Matriliny in Nagovisi Society.Unpublished PhD dissertation, Harvard University. NEEDHAM, R. 1967. Terminology and alliance. II. Mapuche;Conclusions. Sociologus 17:39-54. NICHOLS,, J. 1997. Spring from two common sources: Sahul as alinguistic area. In Archaeology and Linguistics, P. McConvell and N.Evans (eds), pp. 135-168. Melbourne: Oxford University Press. OGAN, E. 1966. Nasioi marriage: an essay in model-building.Southwestern Journal of Anthropology 22:172-193. 1972. Business and Cargo. Canberra: New Guinea Research Unit,Australian National University. OLIVER, D.L. 1949. Studies in the anthropology of Bougainville,Solomon islands. Vol. 29, nos. 1-4. Papers of the Peabody Museum ofAmerican Archaeology and Ethnology ethnology(ĕthnŏl`əjē), scientific study of the origin and functioning of human cultures. It is usually considered one of the major branches of cultural anthropology, the other two being anthropological archaeology and : Harvard University. 1955. A Solomon island Society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard UniversityPress The Harvard University Press is a publishing house, a division of Harvard University, that is highly respected in academic publishing. It was established on January 13, 1913. In 2005, it published 220 new titles. . PARKIN, R. 1992. The Munda of Central India: An Account of TheirSocial Organization. Delhi: Oxford University Press. PARKINSON, R. 1999[1907]. Thirty years in the South Seas. Honolulu:University of Hawaii Press The University of Hawaiʻi Press is a university press that is part of the University of Hawaiʻi. . PAWLEY, A. 1981. Melanesian diversity and Polynesian homogeneity, aunified explanation for language. In Studies in Pacific Languages andCultures in Honour of Bruce Biggs. J. Hollyman and A. Pawley (eds)pp.269-309. Auckland: Linguistic Society of Auckland. PERRY, W.J. 1914. An analysis of the genealogical tables collectedby Dr. R. Thurnwald in Buin. Anthropos 9:801-811. POWDERMAKER, H. 1933. Life in Lesu. London: Williams and Norgate. RADCLIFFE-BROWN, A.R. 1930-31. The social organization of theAustralian tribes. Oceania 1:34-63, 206-246, 322-341, 426-56. RAUSCH, P.J. 1912. Die Verwandtschaftsnamen der Nasioi,Sudost-Bougainville, Deutsche Salomoninseln. Anthropos 7:117-119. RAY, S.H. 1926. A Comparative Study of the Melanesian IslandLanguages. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. RIVERS, W.H.R. 1906. The Todas. London. 1907. The marriage of cousins in India. Journal of the RoyalAsiatic Society The Royal Asiatic Society of Great Britain and Ireland (RAS) was, according to its Royal Charter of August 11, 1824, established to further "the investigation of subjects connected with and for the encouragement of science, literature and the arts in relation to Asia. of Great Britain and Ireland Great Britain and Ireland are the two largest islands in the British Isles. A former state, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, was composed of the political union of the two. 39: 611-40. 1914a. Kinship and Social organization. London: Constable. 1914b. The History of Melanesian Society. Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press. ROSS, M. 1994. Areal phonological features in north central NewIreland. In Language Contact and Change in the Austronesian World. T.Dutton, and D. T. Tryon (eds), pp. 551-572. New York: Mouton de Gruyter. 2001. Is there an East Papuan phylum? Evidence from pronouns, inThe Boy from Bundaberg: Studies in Melanesian Linguistics in Honour ofTom Dutton. A. Pawley, M. Ross, and D. Tryon (eds), pp.301-321.Canberra: Pacific Linguistics. 2003. Pronouns as a preliminary diagnostic for grouping Papuanlanguages. In Papuan Pasts: Investigations into the Cultural, Linguisticand Biological History of the Papuan-Speaking Peoples. A. Pawley, Hideand Golson (eds). (to appear). SAHLINS, M. 1963. Poor man, rich man, big man, chief: politicaltypes in Melanesia and Polynesia. Comparative Studies in Society andHistory 5:285-303. SCHEBECK, B., L.A. HERCUS, and L.M. WHITE. 1973. The Adnjamathanhapersonal pronoun and the 'Wailpi' kinship system. Papers inAustralian Linguistics no. 6, Pacific Linguistics, series A, no. 36. SCHEFFLER, H. 1971. Dravidian-Iroquois: the Melanesian evidence. InAnthropology in Oceania: Essays Presented to Ian Hogbin. L. Hiatt, andC. Jayawardena (eds), pp.231-254. 1972. Baniata kin classification: the case for extensions.Southwestern Journal of Anthropology 28:350-381. 1978. Australian Kin Classification. Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press. SPRIGGS, M. 1997. The Island Melanesians. Oxford: Blackwell. TERRILL, A. 2003. Linguistic stratigraphy stratigraphy,branch of geology specifically concerned with the arrangement of layered rocks (see stratification). Stratigraphy is based on the law of superposition, which states that in a normal sequence of rock layers the youngest is on top and the oldest on the in the Central SolomonIslands: Lexical evidence of Early Papuan/Austronesian interaction.Journal of the Polynesian Society 112:369-401. THURNWALD, H. 1934. Woman's status in Buin society. Oceania 5:142-170. THURNWALD, R. 1910. Das Rechtsleben der Eingeborenen der deutschenSudseeinseln, seine geistigen und wirtschaftlichen Grundlagen. Blatter Blat´terv. i. 1. To prate; to babble; to rail; to make a senseless noise; to patter.[imp. & p. p. os> Blattered( ) r>.]They procured . . . fur Vergleichende Rechtswissenschaft und Volkswirtschaftslehre 6. 1912. Forschungen auf den Salomon inselns und dem BismarckArchipel. Berlin: Reimer Verlag. TJON SIE FAT, F. 1998a. On the formal analysis of'Dravidian,' 'Iroquois,' and'Generational' varieties as early associative combinations. InTransformations of Kinship. M. Godelier, T. Trautmann and F. Tion SieFat (eds), pp.59-93. Washington, DC: Smithsonian institution. 1998b. Local rules and global structures: models of exclusivestraight sister exchange. In Kinship, Networks and Exchange. T.Schweizer and D.R. White (eds), pp. 261-276. Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press. TRAUTMANN, T. 1981. Dravidian Kinship. Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press. WALSH, M. 1976. The Murin-patha Language of North-West Australia,PhD dissertation, Australian National University. WHEELER, C.J. 1982. An inquiry into the Proto-Algonquian system ofsocial classification and marriage: a possible system of symmetricprescriptive alliance in a Lake Forest Archaic Culture during the thirdmillennium BC. Journal of the Anthropological Society of Oxford13:165-174. WICKLER, S., and M. SPRIGGS. 1988. Pleistocene human occupation ofthe Solomon Islands, Melanesia. Antiquity 62:703-706. WURM, S. 1982. Papuan Languages of Oceania. Tubingen: Narr. Per Hage University of Utah The University of Utah (also The U or the U of U or the UU), located in Salt Lake City, is the flagship public research university in the state of Utah, and one of 10 institutions that make up the Utah System of Higher Education. (1)