LCvi-Strauss‘s contemporaries.
Although this which are also, in a sense, data and commentary,
book displays a careful description of structural-
ism‘s presuppositions, it i s lacking in a similar
portrayal of its critics Consequently, the book ef-
fectively divorces Levi-Strauss from his history,
as well as from the successes and failures of 20th-
century anthropology There is no ethnography in
this book Clarke writes that he has immersed
himself in detailed ethnography elsewhere (p. vii),
so with regard to Elementary Structures, “a more
technical consideration” would merely confirm
that this work i s a “total failure” (p, 86). I am not
convinced. I enjoyed Clarke’s review of how
Juliet Mitchell and Simone de Beauvoir used
Levi-Strauss, but I found his discussion of Austral-
ian kinship so faint that I was not sure he had
read the book. The discussion of generalized ex-
change (pp. 8 6 f f ) does not provide an accurate
picture of that model and does not describe that
model’s relationship t o the book at large. Much
may be said about other papers and books
discussed. Something written in 1952 may now
look “crude“ (p 163). but it is incumbent upon
the critic t o create the context in which the work
was originally published.
What, then, is the virtue of this book? It is
Clarke‘s attempt to show how structuralism
relates t o the culture of commodity production.
The Sartre/Levi-Strauss opposition developed in
the second chapter is manifest in a separation
between content and form, existentialism and
structuralism, and these, in the last chapter, are
discussed as a subject/object opposition. This op-
position, Clarke believes, results from the social
category commodity. Sartre presents individual
action so that society i s at best an abstraction,
totally subjective. Lhi-Strauss makes conscious-
ness irrelevant, stressing instead objective forms
in the brain. One need not accept this; I d o not.
But its very formulation ought t o force us t o a
richer understanding of our discipline’s roots.
Why, for example, was society so nebulous a
thing that many people needed the ”uncon-
scious“ as a model?
Dravidian Kinship. THOMAS R. TRAUT-
MA”. Cambridge Studles In Social An-
thropology 36. New York: Cambridge Unlver-
sity Press, 1981. xvll + 472 pp., maps,
figures, tables, appendlxes, bibliography, In-
dex. $39.50 (cloth).
S T E P H E N A. TYLER
Rice University
Combining methods and data from history and
anthropology, this book makes an important con-
tribution not only t o the study of Dravidian kin-
ship but t o anthropology and history as well. It is
an interpretation of Dravidian kinship derived
from two separate bodies of discourse: one of
ethnological data and commentary, the interpre-
tive topics and meanings of which are located
within the structure of anthropological comrnon-
place knowledge; and the other of Indian texts,
622 american ethnologist
but are projected from within the tradition of In-
dian commonplace knowledge. Trautmann seeks
to encompass these two traditions of discourse
within a single interpretive complex whose orient-
ing concept i s that Dravidian kinship i s a “histor-
ical construct” emergent in both traditions as a
conundrum challenging presuppositions about
marriage, descent, alliance, inheritance, and con-
sanguinity (to express that challenge in concepts
only of the anthropological tradition)
The book has six chapters and divides concep-
tually into two parts The first, consisting of
chapters 1 through 4, which will probably interest
non-lndianists the most, i s principally a com-
parative analysis of individual Dravidian kinship
terminologies and a reconstruction of a protosys-
tem. Part 2, containing chapters 5 and 6, focuses
on cross-cousin marriage as represented in Hindu,
Buddhist, and lain texts, and in Hindu polity. It
will interest Indian specialists more than others.
The introduction opens with an argument for
Dravidian kinship as a double historical con-
struct-one within Indian philosophical dis-
course and another within Western anthropolog-
ical discourse. The discussion then moves on to a
review of Dravidian language groupings and t o a
preliminary comparison of Dravidian and Indo-
Aryan kinship terminologies and patterns of mar-
riage. It also lays the groundwork for an attempt
to separate from the parent Dravidian system
those changes inspired by external sources or pro-
duced by local innovation.
Chapter 2 begins with a formal analysis of
Dravidian kinship terms from one Tamil caste
dialect. This i s followed by an interesting discus-
sion of the history o f the ethnological concept
“Dravidian kinship,” beginning with the works of
Lewis Henry Morgan and concluding with the
more recent contributions of Dumont, Yalman,
Scheffler. and Carter. Morgan, Rivers, and Karve
aside, most of the others are taken t o task for
their ahistoricism or for their attempts t o exclude
from terminological analysis the role of cross-
cousin marriage, an institution that Trautmann
argues is ancestral to all Dravidian systems.
Indo-Aryan kinship terminology is the subject
of contrastive analysis in chapter 3. Discussion
then turns t o variations in Indo-Aryan and Dravi-
dian and their implications for convergence be-
tween the two systems. Analysis of variants leads
Trautmann t o reject the idea put forward by
Morgan and Durnont that the Dravidian and
Indo-Aryan systems have converged t o form a
single system. Variant rules of Dravidian mar-
riage and their implications for reconstruction
are also analyzed here, followed by Trautmann’s
reconstruction of the paradigm of proto-
Dravidian kinship terminology and some in-
teresting speculations on future areas of study.
Chapter 4 analyzes marriage in the Indian
sacred literature known as the Dharmaiastra. It
focuses on the ideology of Kanyddena marriage-
the gift of a virgin-and argues that this form of
marriage, which underlies the Indo-Aryan kinship
system, is inconsistent with the idea of marriage
as alliance and entails instead the idea of
asymmetrical, hypergamous marriage and strict
patriliny. Since the Dravidian system of marriage
creates and maintains alliances, it i s thus
heterodox, as are the various cognatic aspects of
Indo-Aryan kinship. Trautmann gives an in-
teresting account of the interpretive ploys
brought to bear against these heterodoxies by
various Hindu commentators.
Because many analysts have claimed that
cross-cousin marriage prevailed in early Indo-
Aryan kinship, Trautmann seeks in chapter 5 to
assess this claim. After an examination of a great
many of the textual instances of cross-cousin
marriage in the sacred literature of India and of
Benveniste’s attempted reconstruction of proto-
Indo-Aryan terminology as a system structured by
cross-cousin marriage, he concludes that no such
rule of marriage can be inferred either from texts
or reconstruction.
The final chapter turns t o the question of cross-
cousin marriage as attested in inscriptions and
chronicles of kings. Here the evidence for cross-
cousin marriage in several dynasties is inter-
preted as an instance of the political use of a
marriage rule Cross-cousin marriage i s used t o
create and maintain political alliances either be-
tween kingdoms or between the royal family and
other prominent families in the same kingdom
Two appendixes, one comparing Kariera and
Dravidian kinship terminologies and the other a
translation of Madhava’s defense of cross-cousin
marriage, supplement the discussion. A useful
bibliography and index complete the book.
This complex book ranges over a scholarly ter-
ritory so vast that I can only suggest something of
its content. In the space alloted here I cannot
even begin a critical analysis, but I can urge
others to read this provocative book, for it is
more than a study of kinship. It should be read by
anthropologists who are interested in broad ques-
tions of change and method as well as by those
expert in kinship analysis or Indology. I unhappily
restrict my comments t o negative ones pertinent
t o the reconstruction and its methods, for the
reconstruction is not sufficiently motivated
either by data or method, though it is in both
respects a vast improvement on anything that has
gone before it.
Consider first the data. Trautmann’s decision
t o use terminological data from anthropological
analyses of kinship systems is an improvement
over the linguist’s uncontextualized lexicograph-
ical method, but it creates other limitations Most
obviously, it cuts him off from a very large and
valuable body of information contained in dic-
tionaries, grammars, and texts for the various
Dravidian languages. The effect of this decision
was t o omit from consideration quite a few Dravi-
dian groups-particularly those of Central Dravi-
dian-for which anthropological analyses of kin-
ship terminology d o not exist. Moreover, Traut-
mann did not have at his disposal some recent
descriptive works on Central Dravidian ter-
minologies that are critical t o some of his
arguments, though it is t o his credit that he was
able t o anticipate this in discussion and to
diagram some of what they reveal. They require
us t o reconstruct for proto-Central Dravidian,
and probably for proto-Dravidian as well, a
system of alternating generation terminology
whose status either as an alternate referential
system or as an address system remains as yet
undecided. It is undoubtedly the presence of this
system that leads Trautmann t o anomalous
reconstruction of lineal versus collateral and
relative age distinctions in the + 2 and -1
parallel categories.
In this connection, too, one notes that Traut-
mann makes little attempt to trace out relation-
ships with the Munda languages Since several
Munda terminologies (particularly Juang and
Asur) have a similar, but less complete system of
alternating generations, the question of Munda-
Dravidian influence is certainly an important one
for future research.
Some descriptive work that was available
before publication of Dravidian kinship was not
included. For Malayalam, I note the absence of
analysis for Irava, Urali. Kannikar, Kadar, and
Malapandaram terminologies; for Tamil, the
variant systems recorded by Beck; for Kannada,
the Sholiga and Bean’s structural analysis; for
Telugu, the Hill Reddis, Chenchus, and Yanadis,
for the Khand, Niggemeyer; for the Maler and
related Malphaharias, Sarkar’s list and that of
Das, Raychoudhury, and Raha. Whether anything
in these terminologies would alter Trautmann‘s
interpretation is debatable, but at the very least
they might have helped him t o clear up a few
puzzles here and there I also missed any discus-
sion of Kay’s important formal characterization
of the cross-parallel distinction These omissions
aside, one cannot but be impressed with the
range of material that does find its way into the
book, as well as with the sophistication of Traut-
mann’s analysis.
There are three methodological limitations.
The first i s the underrepresentation of affinal as
opposed t o cross relatives in the analysis of single
systems and in the protosystem itself. Almost all
Dravidian systems have some exclusively affinal
terms that cannot be reduced t o cross categories
I t may be that these eventually can be traced to
the alternating generation terminology, but for
the present we can only conclude that proto-
Dravidian had some strictly affinal terms
The second limitation concerns the manner of
inferring a protosystem from i t s descendants, a
process not addressed in any systematic way by
Trautmann. Ideally, one would first reconstruct
protosystems for each of the daughter languages
or dialect groups, after having eliminated bor-
rowings and local innovations. From these, pro-
tosystems for each stem of a language family
would be reconstructed, and from these the pro-
tosystem itself At each step, adequate reasons
would be given for the structure of the paradigm
and explanations made for carrying over t o or re-
jecting in the protosystem the structural features
of any daughter system. To be sure, much of the
method i s only guesswork and hunch, but there is
reviews 623
at least some reasoned attempt t o show how a
particular reconstruction is derived.
The third methodological limitation results
from the decision t o reconstruct a system of ter-
minology but not i t s terms. O n the one hand, I
quite agree with Trautmann’s rejection of the
linguist‘s method of first reconstructing terms
and then haphazardly fitting this historical flot-
sam into some sort of structure. As he rightly
says, it i s a method perhaps appropriate for
phonology but not for semantics. I would go fur-
ther and argue that it is but one more instance of
that ideological hegemony of phonology as the
source of method and theory in linguistics in
which the phonological tail wags the dog of
linguistics. O n the other hand, one cannot simply
discount the terms and omit them, for they do
reveal important structural features. In the pres-
ent case, it is likely that proto-Dravidian had a
system of terms denoting dyads (such as mother‘s
brotherjsister’s son) that was geared perhaps to
the alternating generation terminology. I t also
had a single term denoting “younger sibling” (and
“younger parallel 0 generationkelative”?) per-
haps as an alternate for terms differentiating the
sex of younger siblings Terms also reveal pat-
terns of compounding and suffixing, and this is
certainly one of those areas that is extremely
helpful in locating infrastructural borrowing be-
tween Dravidian and Indo-Aryan Finally, I sup-
pose I would argue that the test of a paradigm is
whether the terms fit, and we cannot make that
decision without the terms
Trautmann dismisses too hastily attempts to
understand Indian kinship as the result of con-
vergence. In linguistics, India is a classic con-
vergence area and so there would seem t o be a
prima facie case for convergence in kinship as
well. True, none of the attempts t o demonstrate
total and holistic convergence succeeds, but
Trautmann‘s own excellent analysis of Indo-
Aryan terminologies in Central India illustrates
perfectly that Dravidian and Indo-Aryan ter-
minologies are now connected by a series of tran-
sitional, compromise terminologies whose struc-
tural changes make i t possible to transmute
Dravidian into Indo-Aryan and vice versa. What
we now understand as the two polar types, Dravi-
dian and Indo-Aryan, are in fact recent
emergents, themselves conditions of this
h i s t o r i c a l process, D r a v i d i a n b e c o m i n g
thoroughly classificatory only in opposition t o
Indo-Aryan and Indo-Aryan becoming totally
descriptive in similar opposition t o Dravidian.
We would not err in seeing them, then, as com-
plementary parts of a single kinship system
united in their opposition and joined by processes
that convert one into the other, and we would be
made aware once more how odd history i s when
we can no longer distinguish between structure
and process.
Miwuyt Marriage: The Cultural Anthropology
of Affinity in Northeast Arnhem Land. WAR-
REN SHAPIRO. Philadelphia: Institute for the
624 american ethnologist
Study of Human Issues, 1981. xi + 173 pp.,
maps, tables, figures, bibliography, index.
$22.00 (cloth).
FRANCESCA MERLAN
University of Sydney
Miwuyt Marriage deals with those people long
known in the anthropological literature as
”Murngin” and ”Wulamba.” The inappropriate-
ness of these and other cover terms for people of
the entire region leads Shapiro to simply use the
directional term miwuyt (northeast) in reference
t o them.
Shapiro does not explicitly dwell on the ”Murn-
gin controversy” but addresses questions central
t o it. His stated purpose i s to examine his north-
east Arnhem Land data on marriage and affinity
in light of “descent” versus “alliance” theories.
He finds that neither fits the Miwuyt data. He
argues that Miwuyt marriage is best understood
in terms of a notion of ”endogamous kindreds.”
In six of the book’s ten chapters, marriage and
affinity are considered from the perspective of
different Miwuyt social institutions that variably
align people as members of social categories and
groups. Chapter 2 describes recruitment by patri-
filiation to moieties and sibs (territorially defined
landowning groups), and chapter 3 deals briefly
with relationship terminology and attempts t o
establish a particular notion of ”kindred,” dis-
cussed below. Chapter 6 deals with matrilineal
constructs; chapters 7 and 8 , with the division of
sibs into four sociocentric semi-moieties; and
chapter 9, with “marriage-sections” (recently in-
troduced into the area) in terms of which mar-
riage choices can be stated. Chapters 4 and 5
treat cultural and quantitative-and-decision
theory aspects, respectively, of bestowal and
marriage. I only briefly mention certain of these
refractions of marriage and affinity, which have
been available for some time (in much the same
form) in published articles.
The residentially dispersed sibs, called “clans”
in some Australianist ethnography, are said t o be
“minimally corporate.” Although a minimal uni-
lineal descent construct (patrifiliation) is the
usual mode of recruitment t o the sib, the sym-
bolic content of sib identity is not descent, as in
the classic African systems. Rather, the basis of
sib unity i s the relation of i t s members t o a par-
ticular tract of territory (and the myth, ritual, and
ritual paraphernalia associated with it). Most
relevant here, sib members do not act corporate-
ly toward those people t o whom they are various-
ly related matrilaterally, and male egos look to
matrilateral kin for a spouse. Shapiro frankly says
that all his formulations are male oriented,
presumably including the notion of the ”kindred”
discussed below.
No groups are recruited on the principle of
matrifiliation. Despite this, affinal and other
matrilateral ties generally take precedence over
agnatic links in determining residential groupings
and in obtaining a spouse Marriage (for a male)
i s prescriptively with M B D (although WF i s clear-