historical reconstruction and its explanatory role in comparative ethnology

8/13/2019 Historical reconstruction and its explanatory role in comparative ethnology

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/historical-reconstruction-and-its-explanatory-role-in-comparative-ethnology 1/17

e, ald E.956 "An inegain f funinal, evluin

ay, and hisial ey by means felain, Indiana University Pbicaions in Anthropooy and Linistics 12: 136.

9 Indians of North America 2d ed., ev.,Chiag, Univesiy f Chiag Pess

e,Hald E, and WiliamC. Massey957 · "Cmpaaive sudies Nh Amei-

an ndians, Transactions of the American hiosophica Society ns 7:

165456.e,Hald E., nd Kal F.Shuessle

967 "Celainal analysis Mudks1957 ehngaphi sample, AmericanAnthropooist 6: 33252.

sn, RbeH., J ·968 "Anima dmesiain, in David L

Sills, ed., Inernation Encycopediaof the Socia Sciences

d,Clellan S ed ·

19 7 Cross-ctra approaches New Haven,RFPess

uldne, Alvin W., and Rihad A Peesn962 Notes on technooy and the mora

aves,

969

· order Indianaplis, BbbsMeill Thede D., Nany B Gaves, andMihael J. Kbin "Hisia infeenes fm Gumansales: he eu f ageaea magi?Crrent Anthropooy 0 31738

n, James 7 "Easen Nh Ameian ahaelgy

a summay, Science 16: 17591.gesand, Tsen

_

68 " The diffusin f innvain, in David

LSills, ed., Internationa Encycopedia

_ of the Socia Sciences : 17 478is, Mavin

968 The rise of anthropoica theoryNew Yk,Cwell.

se,Chales B965 "Culivaed plans and ulual diffusinin Nulea Ameia, American Anthropooist 67 93049

dk, GegePee7 Ethnoraphic atas: a smmary Pis

bugh, Univesiy f Pisbugh Pessk, ege Pee, and Duglas R Whie

1 9 · "Sandad ssulual sample,''Ethnooy 8 32969

e, Jak, and RbeA LeVine6 "Culual dimensins: a fa analysis f

he Word Ethnoraphic· Sampe' Ameican nthropooist 6: 7083.

Simms, Le W1945 The roe of the aed in prim�tive society

NewHaven, Yale UnivesiyPess.

Tgesn,WaenS.1958

Theory and methods ofscain New Yk

Wile

Uk,Pee J, and G.W. Dimbleby, eds1969 The domestication and expoitation of

pants and animaChiag,Aldine

Zene, Fedeik E .1963 A history of domesticae animas Ln-

dn,Huhinsn

5 H R d

Ex R C h, S Mh

·· An explanan is an inelleually saisfayvalid a�we a "Why? quesin ( f Baihwaie1968) Many "Why? quesins in paaive ehngy ake_ he fm: "Why is phennn X

fund i ulue(s) A . n? he fm: · "Why dphenmena Y and Z end be assaed in a lagesample f ulues? An answe eihe quesindinaily eques efeene ins auses bh A genunely hisial explanan igin auses

equies aess h story · sequenia

infmahee and when did phenmenn Xinae? Wha is he eula empal elainsip f Y and Z? In mpaaive enlgy, hweve, infeenes abu sequenes ae usualy madefm synhn daa, beause sequenial daa aelang. Unde hese insanes, an a�we ab

ins akes he fm f an infeene h is a n-luding hyphesis, suje hallenge in he ghf aleaive inepeains I ann be validaedby sequenial ·infmain inluding nlled expeimens and befeadafe sevans Ahyphesis abu aneedens and nsequens basedn synni mpaaive sudies is subje hallenge by mpeing hypheses, bu als by meanf daa fm he smples f uues, whih ay ma n pe exhibi he ame egulaiies n habsene f sequenial infain; igus indiv mehds and lea ieia f hsing amng m



peting ypotee are cruci or eecting te bet te attrbut are "baed on tng park w expanation for te ditribution of phenomena among wood iction compreed ar etc, te proculture an te aociation o penoena it one ligter t it parng sytem ecome art anoter ager c o ome antquty Second te cu

In a ee o metodoocay opiticated ut n quetion mut be denominated Wat eay and monoap Harod Drver a ued oan rom one oint o ew an nventon vario nductve tecque to accont or te anoter te unt are Engand Franceditibuton o attribute among et o cuture many etc ten te team enne i an En

and te aociation o attribute t one anoter vention and a oan or te oter cuture From earet to atet tee tue commend tem u it s a re W est e rn E o pe E as t e E ro p e, N

eve to contempore and to ute genera Arca etc ten te tea engine i a e ton o antropoot not ony or teir concu European nnovation Tird te tie an or on ut ao or te meto wic pert an n queton ut e tate at an nnoter woker to dea wit ima probem n tion at one tage a retention at anoter T ater ection t eay comment on certain eene gt be regarded in one perpectve o Drver' metod and toca recontruction nnovaton tat oowed te eparaton o Ger

a tey apea in n nteaton o Functona ro ProtondoEuropean but in aoter a Evoutonry and Hitorca Teory by Mean o tenton ro ProtoGeranic Given a articuarC0rreaton Ft ued by Dver n 956 t an or et o tage tere oten intret n·de apeared n a er verion n Comaatve Stue equence o nnovation a we a n te i

o Nort merican na (Drver and Maey tatin o retenton and nnovaton957239 wc ued ere or citaton tee decion ae made and i tere tTe reent ea arue tat t normaton about te orin and read o a

naton are commoy ued to account or te - attrbute any attribute can be caed a a r tributon o attbute among cte and tat tion an nventon or a oan n comparatve e tee two type oud be ceary ditngued It oca reearc uc normaton oten accontend tat te ue o reconructve metod In t abence te deco decribed abov merit more conderaton tan a been gven in made metod are avaabe or mang proba recent decade n antropoog t provde a tc coice among te aternatve orde metod or mang nerence about te ocia or cay tem a retention or nnovaton ganzaton o a rotopeec commuty an u are caed a nnovaton ometme tey trate t ue Fnay t comae te reut o a- ao be tngued a nventon or oan

n ti meto wit te ret o certain ote_ some case s, the 1net hods used 1n y . reul in a

ne o nerence It tre owever, on metod in tat te iue indeter1inate ndeed a m rater tan on te pecc ret preented tat ncate tat no coice pobe a

ny attrbute in a gven cuture eter 1 a re · vaue n ocatng pont o ndeterminacy tention rom an antecedent tage in te tory o For certain purpoe an nteectuay ata tat cutre or (2) an nnovaton I t an innova- anwer to te queton: Wy X ound in cu ton t eter (a) a deveopment de novo n tat ? provded by any o te oowng tatemcte or (b) borrowed rom anoter cuture n (1) Becae t retaned rom an earer tage nnovaton de novo ere caed an nventon becae t wa borrowed rom cutre B o but tere no impcaton tat a uc nvention becae t wa nvented n cte ater t e are concouy panned n innovation borrowed dtnctive rom certain reated cuture Trom ome oter ctre a oan Beore attr omeone ak wy men coat ave eeve bu

bute (trat cractertc) can be caed der and tod Becaue tey are a retention rom tee eadng, evera decon mt be made by earier tage wen te eeve o a man coat c te anayt Firt te attrbute mut be treate a be buttoned and unbuttoned crouty one o a et o attrbut o a ven varabe Te be tied even toug any "Wy qudeciion tat an attrbute or not an nnovaton can generate oter unt te anwer ecome edeen upon te denton o te vaabe and it "Becaue tat te way t " or don't know attrbute T te vaabe �iremang One tpe o epanaton ten to cai equpmen w ue ank an wo aue are rue a reeno an nnovao an o cropaneueed and "gterud ueed te y te type o nnovaton were pobe e propane igter may be vewed a a recent nnova type o epanaton an eort to anwer te ton I te vaabe emang equipment and ton Wy dd te retenton nventon or



occur? Thus a retention might be explained as· the result of inertia of its coninued value in hepresent of a desire to maintain cutral diacriticalsto define oup membersp of the continuing ex-ercise of power by those for whom the attribute hasvalue and so on. An invention it be explainedas an adaptive effort includin efforts to increase

comptitive advantage with other societies a striv-

ing toward consistency and so on A loan ght beexplained on the same bases as an invention or asa r esult of its utility in intercultal relations aswell as in other ways It is possible of cose thatno explanation may come to mind or ·that no rulesof evidence can be thought of o choose among alternative explanations. Ths although here isgeneral aeement that sleeve buttons on menscoats are a retention there is no wellaccepted ex-planation as to why the retention has occurred.Put simply the first tpe of explanation whereby

attriutes are classified as retentions iventions orloans explains the distribution of attriutes by reference to their origins. The second type whereyreasons are given for retention invention or borrowing explains th distriution of attributes byreference to their causes Where historical iorma

tion is inadeuate it would appear to be soundstrategy to explain initially y reference to orinsand only thereafter by reference to causes. Thereare two advantages to this strategy. First it reducesthe likelihood of explaining the reason for the recent invention of smeting that may have been retained for millennia the reason for the orrowingof somethng that was independetly invented and

so on Second it avoids excessive reliance on theempirical generalizations or empircal laws of ethnology which are at present only weakly developed

Hence it is desirable o have inductive methods that. .provide a probalistic basis for inferring that a

given attribute in some particlar time and placeis best regarded as a retention an invention or aloan o that it cannot be classified adeuately onthe basis of the methods and data available. Ideallysuch methods should not depend upon propositions aout why things change or remain constantbut only on the proposition that all things change

n tme.Within limits such an iductive strategy is avail-ale in the rean of lecal reconstruction iven{1) a subgrouping of the langaes and dialects of alanguage family 2) the assumption that borrowingsbetween the languages of the family are detectale(3) a set of meanings variales) and 4 a group ofcognate sets for each meaning attributes) probabilistic satements can be made as to whch cognatesets had particular meanings in the protolanguage

65

of a protospeech community. Thus o stadia! nterest is in the protolanguage and one or more subseuent stages. As a direct corollary of the reconstuction o a eaning o a given cognate set an

memer of that cognate set that appears in tha meaning in a daughter language is assigned thstatus of a retention in the daughter language. Anlexeme in that meaning that is not a retention

assigned the status of an innovation in the daughtelanguage whether in the entire language or isome of its dialects. Frther analysis may make possile to establish whether the innovation islocal invention or a loan from another languagof the same faily or from some other languagThus comparave evidence apparently establishethe Navajo word for automoile as a local vention and the Navao word for " apple · as loan from Spanish The decision as between rtention and innovation depends upon the distribution of attriutes cognate sets) aong related lan

gages and dialects in various meanings and not o any proposition about what nds of changes arlikely to occ. For some meanings the distributioof cognate sets may e such that n coate set cabe assigned status as a prototer in that meaninand therefore oviously no decision can e reacheas to which cognate sets re innovations. Thisthe state of indeterminacy to wich we referreearlier.

A sechniue can be used to determine threlative ges of innovation found in the dialects oa languae witn the faly in uestion. In a seof diaects a continuosly disribted innovatio

that interupts the distriution of another innovation may be inferred to e more recent than the nnovation whose distribution it interrupts. Sometimes a seuence of two or three more innovationcan e inferred by these means. If to dialecreons within a larger set of dialects are separatefrom one another ut share a very large number oinnovations however it is sometimes more appeaing to infer that miaton has occrred) The reasothat inductive procedues of these kinds can be employed with some rigor in lec reconstruction that the arbitrary bundles of sounds man u

words in particlar meanings are unlikely to exhiit repeated systematic correspondence in two o more related languages or dialects as a result of independent innovaton. A cognate set may howevecome to hold the same meaning in two or morlanguages or dialects as a result of parallel ransfeof meaning bu this possibility too can often assessed with inductive methods. The methods olecal reconstrcon are set forth in Dyen an

Aerle [n.d.]. Aberle is indebted to Dyen for all o



te matera above on eca reconstruction, butDyen s not responsbe for posbe msordngor msnterpretaton of s v es)

Uke eca tems, oever, many featres ofcture do not exbt a suffcent number of arb-trary partcuartes to make t easy to appy smarnductve metods to the dstrbuton of tese features Appromatey speang, as te nber ofpartcuars of a given attrbute dmnises, ndetermnacy ncreases as to eter ts manestatons nto or more cutures have a common sorca orgn, eter through retention or toug borrongAttrbutes ke descent and resdence re nstancesn hch the degree of ndetermnacy s too hgfor comfort Wen te partcars are fe and theaternatve attrbutes are aso fe te prncpe ofmted possbtes), te coce beteen retenton,nventon, and borroing becomes especay iffcut.

ence tere s a temptaton to use casa expana-tion to decid t ution o orin e reut

s key to be a mxture of expanatory prncpestat s ocay unsatsfactory and terefore dffcutto confront systematcay us a ven attrbutemay be "expaned as an adaptaton to oca condtons, n hch case te ssue of hether t mgt bea retenton of some duraton ma not be rased. Ort may be "expaned as a retenton or a oan ''be-cause t cod not ave deveoped in tu snceoca condtons ere not proptious. In tis ay,a casa anayss s used to fx on or to emnateone or anoter expanaton of orns A fu expanaton as to orgn and as to caue shoud n-

cude to knds of propostons: 1) te attrbute nqueston a retenton, nventon, or oan, and (2t as retaned, nvented, or borroed because . Furthermore, the to eanatos sod intybe kept separate Let t be empaszed tat tere ae

many nstances eren a strong nference aboutorgns can be made, but here nferences aboutcauses are ether eak or nonexstent Tere arereasonaby strong nferences about here and enV!Iious animal were domesticated, bu explana-tons ·as to hy tey ere, or y tis occred atone tme rater tan another, are at best pausbe

It s ighy key tat the commonest ord forfather n Navajo s a oca nnvaton, but noexpanaton as ever been offered as to hy thatterm deveoped, or y t seems to be ispacingte ProtoAtapaskan tem n most contexts

In spte of the soces of ndetermnacy mentonedbov e) it is posshle o make cern poinferences about te soc charactrstcs of a protospeec communty Sometimes t s necessary notony to to use nductve methods ke those us de

66

scribed, c depend on te dstrbuton of varabes among a set of reated ctues, but aso tuse nferences based on te knon statstca assocatons of to knds of attrbutes. he to nes onference soud be kept separate nsofar as posbe e frst step s to seect a anguage famose members are determnaby reated, one kSouan for nstance, rater than one ke okaSouan. It s necessary to recognize at te outsetat just as t s usua to conceve of iaecta vaaon hn a proospeech commuiy (Boomfed 933 56) so one shoud conceve of posbe varaton n soca organizaton and other cutura features tn te protospeec communtyTs compcate te reconstructve task. Tere an addtona compcaton. Wereas ypotetcay, at east, oans beteen adjacent but ngutcay remote anguags of te same famy ardetectabe, there s no ason to suppose that fo exampe, patrocaity ere a oan om ontrib to n djcent tribe t wod be detctb

on te bass of ts partcuartes ence geogapcay nterrupted dstrbutons of soca formbecome at et as mportant as the dstrbutonof tose forms among adjacent ngustc subgroups

A rocede for the reconstructon of featureof soca organaton of a protospeec communt be descrbed, \Vth te re of descent useas an exampe 1) It s assumed tat atever ruof descent existed n te protospeech communtyt s one of te rues knon to us from ving cutures (2) The cassfcaton of descent rues to b

used n te reconstructon s: a) patrnea bmatrnea; (c) both (doube uninea, duo neaor doube descent) (d) neter (batera, ambneas cssfcaon neects certan rare frms odescent. If a dfferent cassfcaton of rues of dscent s used, te outcome of te reconstructomay be dfferent. (3) Each of these fo aternatves condered n turn as a possbe re of descenn te protosystem. For ec re ypoteszed fothe protosye Tl3 the queston s: How ay gefrom the rue of descent n the protosystem rrequred to account for the dstrbuton of descenrues n a te daugter systems for ich nfomaton s avaabe? Te rue of descent tat rqures te feest canges s nferred to ave chaacteried te protosystem, on the gounds tat thprotosystem had at east one re of descent, anon the ouns tat the smpest nference thbt. If t r fo t pce, te u ndetermnate Countng te nber of cagerequred permts te measurement of reatve smpcty (I am especay ndebted to Dyen for h



evelopment of the metho for stablishng theelave simplicity of a set of competing hypothees) Naurally, this mtho i� applie . only in thebsence of ata that pro inormat ion aboutctua sequnces of changes If kinship sysemshang thir rle of scent relatively frequently,e liklihoo that he inference is corrct is lowr than i they change infrequently No simatef frequncy of chang is now availale (4) Since

ere is no reason to assume that the protospechommunty was homogenous in its ru of e-cent, w ask whehr any othr r of escn

as a sufficienly wie or spcial istribution tocate he nference that it, too, shoul be attribe o som rgions of the protospech communi

The genera procere col be applie to amber of feaures of social organzation, but thisssay is limite to scent Th situation bcoes

or complx in sratifi societies where iffrentdescen sysms

.are fun in he same goaphcal

gon (g in a communty) Her I consir onyibal societes, but wh sutable moificaions, theechniqu propos may prove sefu evn in moreomplex situatons As a corolla of the infrenc

at a gvn rue or rl of escen shol be asgne o th protosystem, oher rls of scent ap

earng in some aughtr sysems are automatcallyassifie as innovations It may be that in someases a rule of scent has an inetermina staus he proosystm, an thereby the res in somdaughter systems also are ineterminae stats

Ths when he reconsrucion is complte, ifere are no problms of inerminacy, th rule ofdescen for vry aughter systm can be classifie a rtntion or an innovaion In th case of theovations, further istrbutional analyss can assist the task of_ eciing whether thse innovations

e inntions or loans If he innova escenle (bea) n a givn tribe (A) of th language family whose rule of escen has ben reconstruc aspha, ajacent only to trbs of othr languagilies whos rule of scnt iffers from beta in

e trib uner consiration, thn the innovaion

bt inferre o b an invention The situaiony be mae more complx by consiering tribesh whch trib A may have ha contact in thes, but th infrential proeure rmains the same

h innovae escn rule bea in ib A ise sam as tha in at last one ajacen rbe nother language family (Q), furhr clarificaion

result from a rconsruction of th re of e for language famiy Q If rl beta is classi as a retention in tribe then it is more likely th rule of escent has iffus from to A

from A o Nevertheless, other possibilities

67

xst the rule beta in rbe A may b an inventionrsuting from convrgence unr conitions likhose in which tribe has ese ·for some imeHnc jugmenta issus ars for whch no firmrul of cision ss If trie A an tribe sharnumeros pariculaties in heir escent systemsiffusion is mor likly if they o no, but howmany particularties are sufficient fo such a jugmnt is not stablishe Such particlarities mighinclu clan nams, clan name anslations, claname typs, organizaonal form, acities ansymbolism such as riuals n ohr wors, the isribuional analysis incats tha iffusion haoccurr tribe is the likely soce an rbe A thlikely borrowr, but i oes not establish whetheiffusion has occr

If th innovate scnt rule ba in ibe A ilik hat in a least one ajacent tribe ) of anothlanguage family, an if tha rul bta is inferro be an innovaion in rbe

as well as in ibe A

thn it is possibl hat ffusion has occre, buhr is no basis for jung in whch irction iffusion took plac, if it occurre Again, analysiof similar particulartis foun in h two systmis a gu to assssing whthr ffusion occurran in hs cas may also b use to aempt to eci he icion of iffusionInpnent convergnce on rl beta wth borrowng of particlariiein on or both irections i a possibility, as wel aiffusion of he ru of scen Thus the reconstrucion of several aacent language families affor

guies to a iffrentiaton of inventions an loans bu hr are jugntal probles centring on sim . .

ilaiies bwn two systems for whch no cleacalculus of elave probabiliis can b offere Imus be pt in min ha hre is some probabilitytha .two tribes tha hav inepenenly invnethe sam rule of scnt uner quite ifferent circmsances will nverthlss in th couse of tcome o e ajacen

A more complicat problem arises when the nfrr alpha rle in th protosys (ProtoP) foun in aughter systems (A, n) that are a

jacn o rbs (G H n) wh he same rule oscent but of other language famies (Q, R nThe hypothesis is thn avalable that th socallretentons are rather to be regar as loans romtrs Q, R c Ths may e calle h iffusiohypothsis I sho be poin ou to ben wittha if th ffusion hypohesis is accepe, thenlss favore inference, hat the protosysem's ruof scnt was bta or gamma, mus be acpewith a consequent loss of simplicity Hnce he ifusion hypothesis nees to be consiere th somcare If h rles of escnt for language famili



Q, R etc., have aso been reconstructed, then thedaughter systems of anguage famy P ay be cassified as hang res like nstances of nnovationsor of retentons in tribes of famiies Q, R, etc. If

�

the inferred retentons of the apha re of anguagefamiy P are adacent to inerred nnovations n theother anguage fames, Q, R etc, the ikehoodis reduced that these nstances of the apha re

n angage famiy P are oas f, however, theyare ajacent to nstances in angage faiies QR etc that are aso cassified as retentions, thesitation s ndeternate, snce the simiar descent les are possiby joint retntons, but possby invoe a oan n one drecton or the other (whichnvoves recting the simpest hpothess, theapha re) or independent convergence (whch asonvoves reectng the smpest hypothess).

Withn the frame\ork of distributiona anaysisof descent res, t may be possbe to ove somehat fther. Ths if instances of the beta, gaa,etc, rues, nferred to be nnovatons n anguage

famy P, are also adacent to ike res of descentn anguage famiies Q, R etc no advantage s tobe gained by sbsttuting the beta or gamma rueof descent. Frthermore� in any case it s cearynadsabe to move too far down in he rank orderof smpicity o competng hypotheses, since a rueof descent that is, for exampe, mafest in ony onetribe of angage famiy P but s not the re ofdescent n any adjacent ibe w then be seected

· Nevetheess, the pausibty of the diffusionhypothesis ay be sficent to reqre consideration of other evdence. Where there ae no recon

strctions or adjacent faies, the difson hypothesis will often appea particularly lauible. Terest s the need to compare the particarities ofthe decent systems ithin angage famy P wtheach other and th those o the adjacent trbes ofother angage famiies with the sae re of descent the systes wth re apha o angageamy P resembe each other in their particuarities

more than they resembe those o adjacent systesof other anguage families, iffon becoes esspasbe, and the apha re may be regarded asboth the most ikey and the ost pasbe inference for the protosyste I the systems wth re

apha of angage famiy P resembe each othe intheir pacarities ess than they resebe hoseof adacent systes of other angage famies,the staon is indeterminate t is evdent thatsystems with ifferent res of descent and of dfferent anguage famies may nevertheess resembeeach other in such particarites as can names,name types, and nae transations, hich s anndication that partcaities may be borroed

68 .

whe the rue of descent not On the other hathere are cases of ack o shared partcaamong cosey reated oups. Th the Crow Hdatsa are inferred to have been separated oreatvey short time, yet Crow and Hidatsa cnames do not resembe each other excay nor itransaton, whie Hidatsa and Mandan can nado Mandan and idatsa-Crow ae to sbgrof hghest order within Sioan (see beow). Tas strong evidence that Hdatsa can names hvbeen reatvey stabe or more than a hnyears, and some evidence that Crow canchange reqenty There s aso soe evdence fdiffson o can naes beteen Mandan and Hdatsa There s, however, no basis or inerrng the Cro deveoped matrneaity independefro the Hidatsa, nor that the HdatsaCro rowed matrineaity o the Mandan, or vversa cf. Bowers 1965: 65-71) Hence genereated systems retaing re apha ay ne ra�

ess not resembe each other as respects ner

particaities of their descent systems and nstead resembe neghbong systes o oangage famiies n these respects.

The seecton of vrabes or co:pason o pticuaites and the choice of tehniqes for mring simiarties th respect to these partcaare thorny ethodooca probems. o de ·

soution is proposed for deang th the d uhypothess Distribtiona anaysis o descent in sever adjacent ngage famies affords a bnder soe circstances or evauating the ltve kehood that an innovaton has been

vented or boroed, and nder other crcmstan

o evalating the ikelihood that intae reg cas retenons are nkey nstead to be oa Byond this pont, denta qestions are invoand no definitve eas for converting pato probabiity is known Hence dfuson nbe deat th systematcay beo A ew ad coments e ade particary n connecith Drver's views As for the nerred retrues in ProtoSouan, PrtoAgonqan, ProEyak-Athapaskan, and ProtoAthapaskan,occur n dagher systems that have ruesthose o adacent systems of other angage a

ies but so do the nerred innovatons ea detaied anayss o resembances among sof each angage famy and etween those sysand neghborng systems o other angage awod be necessy for a f dscsson of the dfsion hypothesis, and that i ipossbethe compass of this paper Since substtng beta or gaa rue n these thee protosyswoud raise the sae qeston of ison t



seen by squaing the phi values since phi squaeis a measue of the pecentage of the vaiation inthe dependent vaiable accounted fo by the inde-pendent vaiable

Since this essay is conceened ith descent eill exaine the phi squae values fo ules of de-scent and those vaiables othe than kinship tei

nology ith hich they ae ost closely coelatedMatilineal descent and maticenteed land tenrehave a phi square vaue of so that matricenteed vesus othe land tenre may be said to ex-plain 64 pe cent of the viance in acconting fomatilineal and othe ules of descent Pailinealdescent and paticenteed land enue have a phisuae of only 08 Bilateal descent and bilocalesidence and bilateal descent and no ncenteedland tenre have a pi squae of only 08 (tedfo the to viables) Unde these crcumstancesit od appear that the ony "nomal sequenceon hich e shold ely heaily is that beteenmaticenteed land tene and mailineal descent

In all othe cases the antecedents explain a sufficiently small amount of vaiance so that the econstuctions of descent es that appea to iolateDives stochastic chain sequences should not beexcluded fom consideation on that accont Asfo matrcenteed land tenre thee seems to be noantecedent fo it that accounts fo much of the vaiance in that variable The point is not to denyvalidity to many of the links in Dives chains butto question thei vaue fo econsuctive puposes

I shl poide a econstuction of the ule oules of descent n tree language families SiouanAlgonquian and EyakAthapskan In each case

thee is at least one lecal ecotuction o thekinship system of the entie potospeech communityo a mao suboup theeof The siificance ofthe lecal ecostuction wll be cosideed in eachcase afte a distibutional analysis o descent ruleshas been caied out In the econstuctions thatfollo descent is the vaiable selected It has fouattributes patiineaity atilin eaity double descent and bilateality Retentions ae ules of decent assigned to a potospeech counity Innova-tions ae ules ote than etentions appeaing nethnologically knon tibes o in one nstance in

econstuctedpotoistoic stages f such tibes

The poblem of units of anaysis is a difficut oneIf languages o ingistic suboups of higheode ae counted as separate instances even ifthey are contiguo a conrayminded eademay obect that if to conguos tibes speakingelated languages share the same e of descentthey may epesent one instance of the ule athethan to Thus if they constantly intemay

7 0

they may have adopted the ule togethe On thothe hand if one potion of a dialect chain haone ule of descent and anothe potion anotheand if one of the ules is an innovation it couell be gued that the innovation began somehee in the chain and not eveyhee and thathe innovation epesents not one change buseveal as the change spead fom one dialect grouto anothe We wll ty to deal wth this poblemas it aises in each instance and will qualify oucomments abou the numbe of changes fom potostage to daughte systems by speang of "at leastthee fou etc changes of descent e Any positechange of descnt e wll be called a "shift

Ethnoapic data on descent ae dan fomDive and Massey (197) except as noted The consequences of utilizing diffeent appoaches ae dificlt to gasp if the facts cosideed are also diffeent Hence heeve possible the facts ill bbased on Dives ok

The fist language family to be consideed

Siouan follo Matthes (199 23) in dividinSiouan into fou linguistic suboups of higheode The languages listed ae hose ith hicMatthes dealt in his lexical eonstuction oPotoSiouan kinship teminology and so the lidoes not include all knon Siouan langages Thsubgoups ae: 1) Missoi (Hidatsa Co); (2Mandan; (3) Mississippi (Dakota Chiee anDheha); and 4 Ohio (Bilo Ofo and TutelWithin Mississippi Dakota includes AssiniboinSantee and Teton; Chivee includes WinnebagIoa and Oto; Dhegiha includes Omaha KansaOsage and Quapa If Siouan tibes ae clustee

geoaphically Missoui and Mandan ee fulladacn until the Co becae sepaated fom thHidatsa; Missoui and Mandan ae sepaated fomMississippi and Ohio The Mississippi goupcntinuously distibuted and sepaated fom OhiThe Ohio Siouans ae dispesed

f linguistic unts ae utilied fo econstucivprposes thee ae then fou subgoups thee ohich (Missoui Mandan and Ohio) ae exclusively matilinea and the fouth of hich (Missisipp) is blateal in the north (Dakota) and patlineal in the south (Chiee and Dheha) If

patilineal pototype is posited at least fo shifae equied to account fo pesent distibution(1) fom patilineal to bilatea o Dakota an(24) fom patilineal to matilineal fo MissourMandan and Ohio (Accoding to Mudock diect shift fom patilneality to matilinealitithout an inteening bilateal stage is egadeas highly unlikely but e ish to econstuinitially ithout consideing such poposions C



Murdk 949 269) A matrlneal prttypereqires at least three shifts () frm atrilinealt bilateral fr Mississippi, fllwed by (23)patrilneal shifts in Chiwere r Dheha; r twshifts ( ) frm matrilineal t patrilineal fr Missis

sippi fllwed by (2) a bilateral shift fr DaktaSine the latter sequene affrds fewer shifts, it isprefered A dble desent prttype reqires at

l i sh fts; 1-3 t lineal in Missuri Mandan ad Ohi; (4) frmdue esent t patrnea in ssisspp; frm patrilineal t bilateral in akta. A shift tbilaterality in Mississippi and thene t patrlineality in Chiwere and Dheha requres ne mreshift and is disregarded A bilateral prttype requires at least five shfts: ( 3) frm bilateal tmatrilineal fr Missur, Mandan and Oh and(45) frm bilateral t patrilineal in Chiwere andDhegiha

Thus the matrilineal prttype reqres ny twshifts, he patrilineal fur and the bilateral anddble desent five Hene the matrilineal prttype is preferred fr PrtSian At ths pint itshld be said that if there are n dble desentsystems amng the daughter languages, a dubledesent prttype will always be in last plae rtied fr last plae in the mpetitin fr the simplest hypthesis It hs been intrdued abve frmethdlgia illustratin, but in all subseqentnts it will be disregarded, sine nne f the systems under nsideratin is haraterized by dble

desent the same tken, the failure t nsiderrare types f desent is f n imprtane sine anyrare type (e.g. matrilines f females ny and patrines of male ony wi compete unavorably ihther types eept ntets where at least smedaughter systems are hateized by the rare typein qestin

It is nw pssible t nsider whether PrtSian shuld be ssigned tw rues f desentsine the inferene that matrlineality prbably haraterized the PrtSian speeh mmunity desnt eliminate the pssibility that sme ther frm

f desent haraterized a ptin f it With bilateraty found in on one secto o one suboupf highest rder there seems n reasn t mpliate the renstrutn wth a bilateral rule If apatrilineal rule is inferred fr a prin f theprtspeeh mmunty the present distributinf Sians suggests a sitatin in wh matrilinealrues btained at tw ends f the mmnity wthpatriineality in the middle. This in tun, sggestsa prir matrneal stage, wth patrilineality as aninnvatin in the enter whih rets us t thematilinea inferene fr a still earlier stage in the

7

histry f the prtspeeh mmunity. Thusngisti nits are sed fr nting shifts and nly the distribtin f rues f desent is takint at a matrilineal rle f desent is tsimplest renstrutn fr PrtSiuan. t rquires tw fewer sifts than its nearest mpetitwhih seems a reasnably gd marn

If instead f unting linguisti nts we

ntigs lustr thr r m iin t bmade abut hw t lster tribes If Crw andasaMandan are reaed as separae nis · ase they are gegraphilly separated and if thhi Siuans are treated similarly fr similar resns the inferene will favr matrlineality If fthe mment Crw and HidatsaMandan are treateas a sngle luster bease they were ntigunt t lng ag and if the Ohi Siuans atreated as a single lster n grnds that they mne have been ntigus if perhaps nt reently a stiffer test an be psed fr the matlineal inferene Witin Mississippi whih is geaphial as we as a lingist nit tribhmgenes in rule f desent are treated as suusters Hene there are tw sblsters Dakand ChiwereDhegiha A patilineal prttype rqires at least three sifts () a matrilineal ne fMandanHidatsaCrw; (2) a matrilineal ne fhi and (3) a bilateral ne fr Dakta. A matlinea prttpe requres at least tw shifts Ibilateral shift fr Dakta and (2) a patrilineal shfr ChiwereDhegiha (Or ne might psit a pat

lneal sft ·fr all the Mississippian grup flwed by a bilateral shift fr Dakta r a biatersift fr all the Mississippian p fllwed byptrilinel hift fr hiere=Dheh, t the

ber f shifts remains nstant) A bilateral prttyreqres at least three shifts ( ) a matrilineal fr MandanidatsaCrw; (2) a matrilineal ne fhi and (3) a patilineal ne fr CiwereDhehA matrineal system is still favred as the prttype if gegrapal nts rather than linguisnes are sed but the marn is nrrwer. Treament f hi Sians as nstituting mre th

ne luster wuld hwever, imprve the margfo tlineitWhether ne unts langage unts r luste

Murdks ews n transitns frm matriinealit patriineaity wuld inrease the advantage the matrlineal prttype ve the patrilineal sineah transitin frm patrilineality t matrilinealwd invlve an initial shift t bilaterality flwed by a matilineal shift

The matrilineal inferene, hwever, is nt patible with Matthewss nlusin that PreSiand PrtSian had Omaha teminlal fe



ures ( 959 Te sasca asscan beweenOaa cusn ers and parlneal s arked,and Den and berle (nd ave swn a n awrld saple f knsp sses, als all Oaasses are parlneal, wereas als nne arearlneal. ence Maewss nferences r ne,r b, requre exanan Maewss recn-srucn cnans w secns. In e re exen-sve secn, e prvdes a lecal recnsrucn b

e cparave ed, wc ndicaes e igprbabl a PrMssssppan ad Oaacusn ers e des n n fac recnsruc Pr-Suan cusn ers, pnng u a e Pr-Mssssppan Oaa sse a be eer an nn-van r a reenn fr PrSuan. Suc ev-dence as e uses favr e nference a s areenin fr e prsage s n srng. In add-n, e dsregards e lecal eence a wuldper a recnsrucn fPrSuan Crw cusners fr ale crss cusns, a recnsucn basedn e cncurrence f Hdasa and Mandan, repre-

senng w subgrups f ges rder e sesasde s evdence n grunds f dasa nfluencen Mandan, us reducng· w nsances ne Ifs reducn s acceped, PrSuan crsscusn ers are n recnsruced; f s n, enPrSuan prbal ad Crw cusn ers Succusn erms are srngl asscaed w arlneal- and duble descen.

In aner secn, Maews underakes an n-ernal recnsrucn f PrSuan ernlg, arrve a a PreSuan sage, n wc, e argues,ere was a class f relaves cnssng f sblngs,sblngsnlaw, cldren, sblngs' cildren, and

faers sser, dvided n subclasses, and afaer's sser, lder parlel sblngs, cldren, andsblngs cldren are relaves in is class frwhic ere are n specfc ers, bu nl dervedfrs f e general ers ," and a faer'ssser, lder sser wan speang, dauger, andsblngs dauger cnsued ne class f relaves . " I s s grupng a prides srng eidence a PreSuan ad an Oaalke nspsse . . (all fr Maews 959 275 .

Tus Maews avds e ikeles cnclnfr cparave leca edence, a Pr

Suan ad Crw cusn ers, selecng nsead

an nference based n nernal recnsucn adevelps an iage f Oaa reaen b refer-ence wrd classes, bu n clearl specfableeanngs, n PreSuan I s reasnable nsead nfer eer a PrSuan csn ers aren recnsrucble, r a e are f Cr\ e,and suspend juden n e iplicans f nrnal rcnsucin n l

a bes suppr, and a wrs d n cnradc, enference fr e dsrbun f descen rulesa PrSuan was arlneal If a dfferensubgrupng f Suan languages were be usd

g bece necessar cange nferenceabu descen and nferences abu knsp er-nlg. s ngs sand, e arlneal nferencesees farl srng.

Le us nw cnsder Drver's vews f Suan d

ferenan Frs, e acceped Maews's nferencesand us endws PrSuan wi Oaa er-nlg. lug e des n specfcall sa ae prspeec cun was erefre parlneal, gven e asscan f Oaa cusn ersand parlneal, s wld be a nral nference.e regards e arcenered paerns f Hdasa,Crw, and Mandan as a resul eer a arrculural dependenc based n wen's ricural acves r nfluences fr Caddans, rb (Drver and Masse 957: 43738 Te Crwavng develped arilneal, reaned evenafer e canged fr rclral base

. buffal unng (Drver and Masse 957 437 . I clear a Hdasa, Crw, and Mandan arlnea are reaed as nnvans, n reenns IPrSuan Drver des n specfcall isce O Suans, bu snce e vews sueasearlneal n general as lcall evlved n rculural base, presabl e cnsders OhSuan ariln an nnan, weer a lan an nvenn.

In rder cpare e explanar asks rsulng fr w dfferen recnsrucns, necessar g sewa ben Drver's

ens and prde a sequence f dfferenan fSuan a s cpable w his rearks bu cludes feaures dd n enn Under pess a e PSuan speec ccan e nferred ave been parlneal beca s knsp ernlg, Mandan, Mssri O arlneal are regarded as nnvai s s Daka blaerl. causal explan s sae f affars wuld, en, aep cfr CwereDegia reenn f pafr e arlneal nnvans i Mansur, and O; and fr e blaeral n Daka Under e pess devel e PrSuan speec c '

lneal, a caus explanan wd accun fr e M_andan, Mssr On f arilneali fr e Cier -

nvan f pailinei a d fr laeral nnan

I sm - f ll x c



either sequence In what follows, it is asserted onlythat the explanations are compatible with Driversdata and inferences about stocstic chains, notthat they are Driver's explanations Given the patrilineal prototype, ChiwereDheha retention ofpatrilineality may be explained by continued reliance on a patridominant division of labor inwhich hunting is more important than horticultre

and warfare is also important in a relatively sedentary situation, which proides a base for unilinealinstitutions and, given the patridominant end,for patrilineal ones The matrilineal sectors may beexplained by an increased reliance on horticultureand perhaps by contact with M uskogeans or otherGulf peoples for the Ohio group and with Caddoansfor the Missori and Mandan groups Given thematrilineal prototype, the matrilineal retentionsmay be explained by a continued reliance on horticulture. In the case of the Mandan and the HidatsaCrow, continued reliance on bottomland farmingthroughout their movements seems characteristicand could account for the matrlineal retentions.The ProtoMississippi Siouan patrilineal innovation may be explaine by a sift from a maor horticltural dependency to a eater relianc on hunting and stronger emphasis on warfare Under eitherhypothesis Dakota bilaterality may be vewed as aresponse to a decreasing emphasis on horticultureand a roving, rather than a semisedentary, huntingexistence, oriented to the buffalo (This is not fullyadequate as an explanation for the bilaterality ofthe eastern Dakotas, but the inadequacy featuresboth hypotheses) Under either hypotheses, given the

patrilineJty of Dhegha the atridoinant division of labor and atrilocal residence of the uapawc_an be regarded as a result of southeastern hortcuturalist influence impinng on that tribe butnot on other Dhegiha tribes. Finally, under eitherhypothesis, Crow matrilineality on the Plains is tobe viewed as a retention from a prior stage in whichhorticulture was dominant in the ecnomy

What interesting about the two explanations isthat, since either is compatible with Drivers stochastic chains, these chains do no in this instancehave much power for reconstructive prposes

Hence it is reasonable to conclude that the ProtoSiouan speech commuty was probably matrilinealand that the causal task is set by that reconstruction,however it is to be carred out. It is evdent that thecausal task changes as the reconstruction changesIt must again be stressed that ths is an exercise inmethod, and that a different subouping of Siouanmight yeld different rests

If, however, the ProtoSiouan speech community to be regarded as prehorticltural, the matrilineal

73

prototype does not fit with Driver's stochastic chain(cf Driver and Massey 1957: 4 The question thewould arise: Should the reconstrction be set asidbecause of its implasibility, or should the putativcauses of matrilineality be reconsidered? The quetion will arise again later in ths essay

The reconstruction of the descent re for PrtoAlgonquian rests on Hockett's (1973:302) subgroup

ing of Algonquian He divides the family into fousubgroups of highest order Cheyenne ArapahBlackfoot, and CentralEastern CentralEastern ivded into Central and Eastern Central includeseven subgroups I CreeMontagnaisNaskapi (2

-

OibwaAlgonkinOttawaSaulteaux (3) Potawatom4) Menomini; (5) SaukFoxKickapoo; (6 MiaPeoriaIllinois; and () Shawnee Eastrn has a morhierarchial pattern of suboups: I Delaware an(I assume) Mahican; (2) the remainder, subdiideinto (a) Micmac, Malecite, Abena, Passamaquoddyand Penobscot, and (b) other, subdided into (Atlantic Coast forms and (ii) New Enand forms.

In ters of geographical clusters, Cheyenne anArapaho are contiguous and separated from all Algonquian speakers Shawnee is slightly separatedfro all the others but alost adacent to IllinoiThe reainder are continuously disibuted, in thsense that each tribe has at least one Algonquianeighbor The group will be treated as constiutintwo discrete geographical clusters: CheyenneArapaho and other.

Matrilineal descent characteries only Delawaand Mahican. The remainder of Eastern is bilateraexcept or Atlantic, where the form of descent

unknown n the remainder of the discussion, areferences to Eastern must be understood to eclude Atlantic All of Centrl is patrilneal exceCreeMontagnaisNaskapi, wich is bilateral Blacfoot, Cheyenne, and Arapaho are bilateral A patrlneal prototype reqres at least (13) three bilatershifts in the west (Arapaho, Blackfoot, Cheyenn(4 a bilateral shift in Eastern; followed by (5) matrilineal shift for DelaweMahican or (4) a blateral shift for most of Eastern and (5) a matrilineshift for DelawareMahican and 6) a bilateral shifor CreeMontagnaisNaskapi in the Centrl grou

for a total of six A matrilinel prototype requirat least (13 bilateral shifts for Arapaho, Blackfooand Cheyenne; (45) a patrilineal shift in CentrAlgonquian followed by a bilateral shift for CreMontagnaisNaskapi; (6) a bilateral shift for the rmainder of Eastern, for a total of six A bilaterprototype requires at lest 1) a matrilineal sift DelawareMahican and either (27) six patrilinesifts in Centrl (by diffusion or parallel develoment) or (2) a patrilineal shift in Central, followe



by (3) a retu to bilaterality for CreeMontaais-Naskapi. The latter, as the simplest sequence isprferred. The total is three. Hence the bilateralprototype, ith three shifts, is the best nference,as compared ith the patrilineal and matrilineal,tied for six shifts. urthermore, it is the best by afairly ide marn. If e coun by clusers, a patrlineal prototype requires at east () a bilateral shift

for CheyenneArapaho, and then a seres of shiftsithin the other huge, Algonquian cluster If eachregion that is homogeneous �Jth respect to rule ofdescent is counted as a subunit thin that cluster,at least to additional sifts are reqred: (2) a bilatera shift for a northern strip from Blacfoot tothe east coast and (3) a matrilineal sft forDelaareMahican for a tota of three A matrilineal prototype requires at least ( ) a bilateral shiftfor th CheyenneArapaho cluster and ithin thelarger cluster at least (2) a bilateral shift for thestrip from lackfoot to the east coast and (3) apatrilineal shift for the contiguous patrilineal Cen

tral Algonquians, for a totl of three. A bilateralprototype requires shifts only itin the largercluster: at least () a patrilinel shift for the contiguous Central Algonqias and (2) a matrilinealshift for DelaareMahican for a total of to. Thusthe bilateral prototype is preferred, but by a nar-roer margin than en inguistic units are count-ed. The same narroing of the marn can be ob-served in the case of Siouan clters This resultsfrom the smaller number of units employed. Clustercounting seems to violate good sense in the lgonquian case a single, unity shift for the enormousbilateral northern strp, a strip that cannot be re

garded as a genetic unit of smaller scale in the past,is unappealing

This inference accords ith Drivers implicit assignment of a bilateral rule of descent to Prto-Algonquian. He regards Cheyenne and rapahoas haing been matrilneal prior to their moing onto the Plains ad eats his matrilineality as an in-vation Te patrlineality of the blk of the Central lgonquians is also eated as an innovation(Drive and Massey 957: 4415, 437). Thus bilaterality as the protoform emerges by exlusion Driversmatrilineal stage for Cheyenne and apaho has

implications for he reconstruction of Prtolgon-quian descent If a reconstruction is attempte inhich these to groups are treated as recently matri-lineal, it can be shon that a matrilineal protosys-tem is the best inference, by a marn of one, ithbilateral second. Thus Drivers reconstruction forCheyennrapaho is incompatible ith his implicit reconstruction for PrtoAlgoqian. Hisreconstructon for CheyenneArapaho is disregarded

74

here, since this essay argues that reconstructionthough the aalysis of distributions should beundertaken initially ithout respect to other linesof inference, and in particular ithout respect tocausal arguments In any case, there are problemsabout the GheyenneArapaho recontruction Driverpoints out that the Cheyenne and rapaho haveatrilocal residence and that, in addition thy ae

to of the three instances f exogamous matridemesin North Ameria. The other is the Ute. Since bothAlgonuian tribes ere · probably horticultural be-ore they moved o to the Plais, he infers that atthat time they ere matrilineal and matrilocal, andthat matrilocality as retained · om that period.Their matrilineal descent groups became exogamusmatridemes under the impact of Plains life Thisargument ould be fairly strong if it could beshon or inferred hat exogamos matridemes area common result of a loss of matrilineality and alsothat they are an uncommon predecessor of flly developd matrilineal descent There are no statistical

assocations to support such an nference. ·There isonly opinion and Murdock has a contrary vie. Heholds that exogamous demes re a common precsor of unilineality (Murdock 1 949: 75) . Hence theinference for Cheyenne and Arapaho s not ellsupported

Let us no examine lecal reonstruction of kinship terminology for its compatibility ith one oranother of he foregoing hypotheses. Hockett (1964)has reconstructed ProtoCentral lgonquian kinshipterms The system appears to have Ioquois ousinterms derived from terms for siblingsila, ratherthan the reverse This prodes indications of cross-

cousin marriage Dyen and Aberle (n.d) sho thatmost roquois systems are characterized by unilinealor double unilineal descent but that is not possibleto decide beteen matilineal, patrilinal, or duolineal rules on the basis of these cousin terms Theassociation, hoever, is eak, and the phi squaresmall ( .0) Since under any of the hypotheses, if linguistic units are utilized ProtoCentral lgonquian emerges ith a patrilineal rle o descent,the linguistic reconstruction is cmpatible ith hedistibutinal analysis of descent res t should besai oever, tht Hocketts argnent that the

ProtoCentral lgonquians had matrilineal cross. cousin marriage and patrilocality does not seem very

stron. T·he terminological equations he find aenot fully consistent it ay one form of crosscousin marriage, but seem most consistent ith bi-lateral crosscousin marriage rrespective of residence(cf. Hockett 1964 esp 25456)

Unfortunately, there is no reconstruction forProtoCentralEastern lgonquian or for Proto



.

Algonquan There are a fe� nts Eggan fidssome equations among Arapaho and heyene kinshi terms that suest ast crosscousin marriae(E ggan 19a 454 1955b 1 Taken with Hockett's reconstruction, tis suggests to me that Prto-Algonquian may have had roquois cousin termsand equations indicatng crosscousin marriage butat this point such an interpretation cannot be put

forth strony. ince roquois cosin terms are morestrongly associated with unilineality or doubledescent than with bilaterality, tis ighly tentativereconstruction accords better wih the less favoredpatrilineal and matrilineal reconstructions (tied forsecond place than wh he laeral one. Thus hebilateral inference is not devoid of problems. Acausal nterpretation of Algonquian differentiationalso raises some difficutes

It is plausible to regard the PrtoAlgonquiansystem as having been based on hunting and gathering. Hockett posits a date of around 2000 ears

ao for ProtoentralEastern Alonquian? andthis implies an earlier date for PrtoAlgonquian(Hockett 93 910) This fits with a huting andgathering subsistence base. evertheless, under conditions permitting a certain stabity of group membership, both patrilinea and matilineal huntersand gatherers are known. More is said of matrileahuntes and gatherers in the discussion of EyakAthapskan Retention of bilaterality among thelackfoot and the northernmost Eastern Alonquians can be pausibly explained by reference to acombination of rovng hunting and gathering based

on fluctuating resources, changes of location in thenottoodistant past, and the impact of the fur tadeentral Algonquian patrilineality can be referredo more stale resources and sedentarization, combined with a patridominant diision of labor andan emphasis on warfare, and perhaps influence fromthe atrilineal iouans. Since man of the entralAlgonquians were horticultural, it is necessary toargue that their horticultural actiities did notproide them with a matridominant diision olabo, and this accords with iver's data, save forthe Miami ith a matridominant division of laborthey are anomalous. The infeed return to bilater-ality of the reeMontagaisaskapi can be re-ferred to norhward movement and the same complex of factors that accounts for bilateral retentionsamong the lackoot and the most northerly of theastern group elawareacan marlnelycan be referred to the importance of horticulture inthat area and perhaps to roquoian ifluence Theew England Algonquians, th a matridominantdision of labor and bilaterality, ae somewhatanomalous; their bilaterality could be referred to

7

inertial retention. heyenne and Arapaho matrilcaity and exogamous matidemes could be eplained b the adop ion of both dring a pri

-

horticultura period and by inertial retention on thPlains. This sequence accords with river's comments, except for heyene and Arapaho, but gobeyond his remarks to discuss more instances thhe does A bilateral prototype is nt free fom dif

cuties, but there is no competing reconstructioA frm subgrouping for Algonquan, Ritwan, Mukogean, the Gulf languages, and various other laguage families to wich Algonquan is said to related mght result a wider reconstruction wimplcaons for PrAlgqu, a d ffsubgrouping of Algonquian itself could affect tchoice among hypotheses The Algonquian cashows that the introduction of inerences basedinternal reconstruction (heyenne and Arapahinto a system of inferences based on distributiocan affect the conclusions.

A distributiona anaysis of descent res in EyaAthapaskan results in a reconstruction of matrilieaity in the protospeech community, and of matrlineaity and perhaps some bilaterality in the ProtAthapaskan speech community. The iference fProtoAthapaskan fits with Kroeber's reconstructioof ProtoAthapaskan roquois cousin terms 193rather than th Hoijer's of Hawaiian cousin term 195) There are reasos for prefering Kroebereconstruction over Hoier's ince en and Aber

(n.d) have prepared a full account of the reconstution of nship terminology and rules of descen

which takes into account many alternative recostructions by others, detals are not presented herIt has often been menoned that northern ansouthwestern matrlineal Athapaskans resemble thenonAthapaskan matrlineal neighbors i cerarespects but these reseblances indicate only thsoe descent roup naes have been borroed fro

these neighbors they do not prove the borowing of the decent rule itself orthern and sutweste matineal Athapaskans also resemble oanother wth respect to certain particularities their descent systems ncluding name style and claorin myhs o meaement of deees of internand exteal simaiti has been carried out Athough it s true that northern and southwesteAthapaskan matriinea systems· are adjacent mailineal systes of other language families, it ue h, dly spkng plnel lateral systems are also adacent to systems with lirules of descent. Hence there no basis for rejectithe matrineal inference except the supposed implasibility of ProtoEyakAthapaskan and ProtAthapaskan matrineaity, wich, in this case a



-

possibly in the Siouan case, cannot easily be harmonized with Driver's volutionary processes, because there is no obvio basis for a matridonantdivision of labor.

Driver fnds a bilateral ototpe aealing forProto-Athapaskan, basing hmself partly on subsistence base and pal on Hoijers Hawaiian reconstruction of ProtoAthapaskan kinship terminl ·oy · (Driver and Massey 97 Bilaterality isthe secondbest hypothesis in the DenAberle eatment Thus the competin hpotheses are matrilineal wth perhaps some bilateralit) and bilateralHere I advert to oy a fe\ of the explanatory issuesUnder the bilateral hypothesis, Driver explainsPacific thapaskan palinelity and northern Athapaskan and Navajo and Western Apache matrilineality as innovations, and the matrilineal instances asloans, with the borroin resting from the dominance and prestige of the lenders As a reslt, he isled to vaious comle hotheses to account forthe spread of matiloca residence, particarly

amon norhern Athapkans. More important,Driver finds no ecolocal basis for the matrilineality of the Haida, Tlint, and Tsimshian, one ormore of whom he reards as the donors of hisrule of descent to the norhern Athaaskans Hetherefore osits influence from, or miation from,Asia to account for Northwest Coast matrilinealityYet it difficlt to imane a deee of extracontinental influence stron enouh to be conduciveto atrilinealt in an area here, in his view, tcould not develo de novo. There is no evidentAsian sorce for borowin, and a miation ofmatrilineal eoles from Asia also poses problems,

since in Northestern Asia there is no locationmore conducive to matrilineality than the envionments of Northwestern North America Yet Drivers view, this matrineality, however it reachedthe northe Northwes" Coast, survived there whileavunculocal residence developed, and was hentransmitted to the Athapaskas of the area Allbased on Driver and Massey 197 46 A matrilinea, matrilocal ProtoAthaaskan ss

tem, on _ the other hand, provides for relatively simple trasitions to the dauhter sstems for residenceas well as descent It requires ol that one admitthat the bases for adoptin descent rules are perhaps not et well understood Such an admission issugested by he completies that are created bthe bilateral nference for ProtoAthapaskan; anecolocall based hyothesis in ths case can besustaned onl b infern comlcated anstonsin dauhter systems

There is, then, an uncertnty as to whether theProtoSiouan speech commut inferred to be

7

matrilineal, had a horticltal base, and a hilikelihood that the ProtoEyak speech communityalso infeed to be matriline, d not have a hortculturl base Futhermore, it has been shown thaDrivers nomal stochastic chans can sometmes b

.

used effectively to account for two quite differensequences of differentiation, and that they sometimeleave anomaes unexplained a · point Driver hamade forcefully he question may be raised as twhether we do understand the roots of ules odescent. A look at some other languaes and language families ma rove interesting At resenHaida and Tlnt mst be treated as linguistic isolates since thei relationship with one another anth� relationship of either with EakAthaaskan hanot been demotrated It is impossible to reconstruct a protosystem for a linguistic solate, in same sense that no protolanguage can be reconstucted. In the case of Haida and Tlingit, internreconstrction suests a matrilinea past of somdepth for both, because of their aunculocalit

Without a reconstruction for Penutan, the onlconclusion waranted for Tsimshian is the same afor Haida and Tlingit The reslt is a matrilinepast for the northern Northwest Coast and EyakAthaaskan, for whatever reon The universalitof matilineality for all the Mskogeans for whicDriver hs information inicates a matrilineal prototype for that lanuage family, and the same prototye seems likely for the lrer unit that ncludethe othe Gulf lanuaes The latter conclusodoes not depend uon the subouping of Alonqan with respect to the f languages, sinc

ven if Algonquan is a subou of this acr

famil, matrilinealit is the most probable infence for the entire protosystem ( cf aas 1960 98on the ossibilit that Alonqan is a member of set of subroups whose other members are the Mukogean family and Natche Tuca, Chtimachand takapa) The universalit of matrilinealitamon Iroquoians indicates an inference of matrlinealty for that protosstem Accordin to thSchmitts, reconstruction by means of typologisimilarities of kinship systems sugests that thProtoCaddoan seech community was marilineSchmitt and Schmitt nd ) The Keresan seakeand the Zuni, as isolates, are not frther recon

structible Both oups are matrilineal Driver believes that all of the Pueblos were matrilneal in thpast Distrbutional data on Tanoan requie fulleexamination than is · possible here ilateralit plausble o the otote, but matilinealit s

possibilit. No reconstruction is offered fo PototAztecan Driver believes that its descent ruwas either patrilineal or bilatera, and robabl



latral. Shimkins (1941 rconstruction o Proto,

UtAztcan nshi trminology inrs Haaiiancousin trms, but th rconstruction is tyological,and at rsnt lcal rconstructions o cross cousintrms ar not availal. Drivrs and Shikinsvis a concordant. Mor ork on ProtoUtoAztcananoan dscnt ruls is dsabl hsouthrn Norhst Coast and Platau ous sm

at rsnt to bst xlaind by a ilatral roto-ty. No rconstructions a attmtd or Caliornia.

hr is, ·thn, som indcation that matrilinalitycan inrrd or th arly northrn NorthstCoast, ProtoEyakAthaaskan, ProtoSiouan, Protoroquois, ProtoGl, ProtoCaddoan, arly Krsand Zuni, and ossibly Protoanoan n trms oth historic locations o North Amrican tribsnorth o Mco, th rsult is a matrilinal ast ora larg and almost continuos ara, intrrutd btn Athaaskan and Siouan by lgonquian, -tn northrn and southrn roquoians by Algon-

q�an, and btn Caddoan and Gul on th onhand and th Pbloan Southst on th othr byvario grous, most o thm rlativly rcnt arri-vals. t ould b intrsting to rma th situationin trms o th inrrd locations o rotoschcommuitis.

Som o this matrilinality may hav dvlod ona horticltural bas. his is lausib or Caddoan,roquoian, Krs, Zuni, and Muskogan t is ossi-bl or Siouan. As on movs backard rom Mus-kogan to Gul, a hortcltal bas bcoms lsslikly. For Haida, lingit and EyakAthaaskan,thr no suort or an inrnc o a horticultural bas Not all o this matrilinality nd havn contmoranous, but som o it must havn t is ossib that matrilinality in many artso this larg ron antdats horticultr and isasd on actors not yt undrstood

his broad ron o rconstructions maks itossil to dal illustrativly wth th qustion oloans in th cas o rs inrrd to innova-tions in at last on languag aly Among thAlgonqans, DlaarMaican matrilinality, asan innovation adjacnt to roquoian, is ossibly aloan rom roquoian, hras th rvrs is un-

likly Both Cntral Algonqan atrilinality andChirDhha atrilinality ar tratd as in-novations. nlunc rom on grou to th othr islausil, but thr is no basis or inrring th d-rction o th loan. th rlativ mdth oProtoCntral Agonquian and ProtoMississiiSiouan r knon, this ould rvid guidancas to th dirction o th lo n i a loan occurrdDakota bilatrality, an innovation adjacnt to Al-gonquianrtaind bilatrality, might ossibly

77

vlv lgonquian inlunc, hras th rvrs isunlikly n th cas o Athaaskan, most o thadjacnt languag amilis hav not bn subjctdto rconstruction hr; so ossibl loans o bilatral-ity and atrilinality rom nighboring grous illnot b discussd.

his ssay has dscribd an inductiv mthod orinrring ats o social organzation o roto-

sch commuitis and has alid it to th rulo dscnt in o languag amilis Siouan and Al-gonqian t has rsnd ithout substantiatingdtail som rslts o th alication o th sammhod to EyakAthaaskan n th Siouan cas, amatrilinal rotosystm is th bst inrnc; inth Algonqian cas, a bilatral rototy is bstin th EyakAthaaskan cas, matrilinality is stDnding on th inrnc chosn, th daughtrsysts ar irntly classiid as rtntions orinnovations. Witin th ramord o distributionanalysis, thr ar mthods or dciding undr som

conditions hthr an attribut is liklir to b aninvntion or a loan and hthr a rtntion hyotsis can lausibly b rlacd by a diusion hyotsis Assssing th roabilty o a diusional xlanation by rrnc to siilaritis btn utativ lndrs an borrors, vrsus siilaritis aongutativ borrors, is an issu not ntrly rsolvd

A classiicaon o attibut as rtntions andinnovations, ith or ithout a subclassiication oinnovations as invntons or loans, a ty o xlanation, sinc it accounts or th istribution odscnt ruls in daughtr systms h task o causaxlanation has bn shon to dnd uon thrconstruction dvlod y analysis o distributions Stochastic chains do not aar to hav gratutility in ithr coniing or disrovng th rslts o distributional analysis, artly bcaus o thaknss o statistical associations, artly causdirnt rconstructions ar somtims qually comatil ith th chains or qually incomatiland artly bcaus it is diiclt to assss th rsultin trm o a simlicity argnt n th cas oSiouan dirntiation, to lasibl squncs canb consuctd, dnding on th nrnc n thcas o Algonquian dirntiation, th inrnc r

slts in rob cass that sist causal xlanation n t cas o EyakAthaaskan, th aarntlyimlausibl rconstruction o a matrilinal rotot crats r colxitis in accoting or thdirntiation o additional atrs o kinsh organization i.. rsidnc norms) than dos a bilatrarototy. Bri attntion to additional languagamilis suggsts matrilinal rototys or svrao thm, and this, takn th th matrilinal ronstruction or ProtoSiuan and ProtoEyakAthaas



kan sggests a wiesrea eary an in some asesre or onhortitrybase matriineaity inNorth Ameria. h a ossbiity iiates the e-sirabiity o a rethnng of the bases for esentres.

Ths ssa has v Dv' appah -anation. nstea o benning \ith asa exa•

· nations o norma evotionay seenes going on

o asa exanaos o se orms o soaorgnization an treating retentions as a resiaexaation it has begn with the isse o reten-tion emoying res of simiity in e reo-strtion o the esent res in a imite nmberof angage amiies resetive o roositionsbot the e o tho r Bng th eanaons y reerene to orns t as generatenew robems of exanations by reeree to asesThe reonstrtios resting rom istribtionaanaysis are in some instaes srrising bt giventhe weakess o emiria aws i athrooogy

they are erhas worth onsiering. Eah inereeis sbet to haenge i new sboigs are estabishe Eah is a onig hyothesis oento haenge by other tehnqes e ress o ese arar reonstrtons arehowever ess imortant tha the metho o reon-strtio emoye. The eatmet o ata in thisessay is oe to ritiism sine an eiriay re-setabe reonstrtion or eah angage amiywo reqire a monoah It is key that histori-a reonsttion w ontie to be a neessarytoo for interretation i omarative ethnoogy. Ifso methos that ermit

areise evaation o the

reave smty o ometng nerenes m aot-ing for the same range of fats are rtia a thisis oe sh metho Frthermore it seems vaabeto omare the rests o istribtiona aaysiswith those erive from the stohasti hain aroah emoye by Driver in his fntiona evotionary an histori iteation" of · NorthAmeria ata. The otome may reqre new exaation as to why systems hage or remain onstant with reset to vios attribtes. The essaseems sitabe as a tribte to Driver whose rigor in

intve methos has oibte mh to omarative ethnoogy. it owes most of a to IsioreDyen it owes mh to Driver himse

N

1. The methods used i ts essay are drawn from Dyen andAberle, Lexcal Recontucio 'he Case of he Proto-Athapaskan Kp Syt (n.d.) I am deeply gratefu o IsidoreDyen for his methodolocal contrbuons o our jon workas well as for comments on this essay Spcific indebtedness

78

to him s noed a vaed ponts n this essay hans ato Leland Donald, Katleen Gough and Joseph G Jsen or criical commens Respobly for erros ofor act s mne

2 Ths sequence lusrates a dfference between lexca srucon and reconsrucon of feaures of socal orton n lecal reconstructon a sequence hat invovdsplacment of a leeme n a gven meanng by anoheee and the subsequen reapper_ance of he frs leeat meanng at a aer sage 1s no regare as a souference under most condons But the dsappearance aappearance of blateralty here nferred s a dfferen m

snce here nee be no genetic connecton between thand second apperances of hs descen rue

3 Although Drver ndcates that the rule of descen for tlantic bes is unnown there are some indicaons \as marHnea c wanton 4; 44 ) s, owhas no effect n he compeing hypohess. Whehcoun by lnguis unts or by homogeneous areas � tc s reated as matlnea he blateral hypohess ferred but by a margn of oly one

R C

Boome Leonar1933 Languag, N Yk3 enry H

Bowers Are W.1965 Hiatsa oia a Ceremoia O

iation" Burau of Amrcan EthnoBlltn 1 Washigto D. C. U. .ement Prting Oie.

Braithwaite Rihar B.1968 Exanation" ncyclopda Brta

8 9693.

Driver Haro E-

1956 An integration of ntioa evoay an histoa theoy by meaorreations" Indana Unvrty caton n Anthropoloy and Lntc 12 36.

Driver Haro E an iiam C. Massey195 Comaratve sties o North Ame

Inas' Tranacton of th AmPhloophcal Socty n. 7: 6545

Dyn, I, D F An.. Lexia reostrtio th ase of

ProtoAthaaska kinshi system brige an New York Cambrige versity Press ress.

Eggan Fre1955a The Cheyenne a Araaho ki

system in his Socal Anthropoloth North Amrcan Trb 2 e. ago University o Chago Press95

1955b oia athrooogy: methos ansts" i his Socal Anthropoloy o



North American Tribes� 2d ed., Chicago,University of Chicago Press: 485551.

Ember, Melvin and Carol R. Ember1971 The conditios favoring matrilocal ver

sus patrilocal residence," AmericanAnthropologist73: 57194

Haas, Mary R.1960 Some genetic affiliations of Algon-

kian," in Stanley Diamond, ed, Culturein History Essays in Honor of PaulRadin New York, published for Brandeis University by Columbia University

· Press 97792.Hockett, Charles F

1964 The ProtoCentral Algonquian kinshipsystem, in Ward H. Goodenough, ed.,Explorations in Cultural Anthropology,Essays in Honor of George Peter Murdock New York, McGrawHill: 23957.

1973 Man's place in nature, New York, McGrawHill.

Hoijer, Harry1956 Athapaskan kinship systems, Amer

ican Anthropologist 58 30933.

Kroeber, Alfred L.

1937 Athabascan kin term systems," American Anthropologist 39: 60208.

Matthews, G. H1959 ProtoSiouan kinship terminology, Amer

ican Anthropologist 61 25278.

M�dock, George Peter1949 Social structur? New York, MacMillan

Schmitt, Karl, and Iva Osanai Schmitt

n.d. Wichita kinship past and preset Norman, Oklahoma, University Book Ex-change.

Shimkin, Demitri B.1941 The UtAztecan system of kinship

terminology, American Anthropolo-gist 43: 22245.

Santon, John R.1946 The ndians of the Southeaste United

States," Smithsonian Institution Bureauof Ameican Ethnology Bulletin 137, ·ashington, D.C., U.S. Govement PrintingOffice .

•

.,

historical reconstruction and its explanatory role in comparative ethnology

Documents