Regions Based on Social Structure: A Reconsideration (or...

$: Regions Based on Social Structure: A Reconsideration (or ...intersci.ss.uci.edu/.../KorotayevRegionsBasedonSocialStructure668.pdfracy effects of ﬁngers and dexterity in 5-choice$
668 F current anthropology

tion, labor investment, skill, and the organization of ceramicproduction in late prehispanic highland Peru. American An-tiquity 60:619–39.

d o b r e , m . 1995. Gender and prehistoric technology: On thesocial agency of technical strategies. World Archaeology 27:25–49.

e e r k e n s , j . w. 1997. Variability in Later Mesolithic micro-liths of northern England. Lithics 17/18:51–65.

———. 1998. Reliable and maintainable technologies: Artifactstandardization and the Early to Later Mesolithic transition innorthern England. Lithic Technology 23:42–53.

e e r k e n s , j . w. , a n d r . l . b e t t i n g e r . n.d. Error scaling,Weber fractions, and scales of production: New techniques forassessing standardization in artifact assemblages. MS.

e n g e l h o r n , r . 1997. Speed and accuracy in the learning of acomplex motor skill. Perceptual and Motor Skills 85:1011–17.

f e l t z , c . j . , a n d g . e . m i l l e r . 1996. An asymptotic testfor the equality of coefficients of variation from K populations.Statistics in Medicine 15:647–58.

h a y d e n , b . , a n d r . g a r g e t t . 1988. Specialization in thePaleolithic. Lithic Technology 17:12–18.

k e r s t , s . m . , a n d j . h . h o w a r d j r . 1978. Memory psy-chophysics for visual area and length. Memory and Cognition6:327–35.

———. 1984. Magnitude estimates of perceived and rememberedlength and area. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society 22:517–20.

k i m u r a , d . 1993. “Sex differences in the brain,” in Mind andbrain: Readings from Scientific American, pp. 78–89. NewYork: Freeman.

l a c h n i t , h . , a n d p . w o l f g a n g . 1990. Speed and accu-racy effects of fingers and dexterity in 5-choice reaction tasks.Ergonomics 33:1443–54.

l o n g a c r e , w. a . 1999. “Standardization and specialization:What’s the link?” in Pottery and people. Edited by J. M. Skiboand G. M. Feinman, pp. 44–58. Salt Lake City: University ofUtah Press.

l o n g a c r e , w. a . , k . l . k v a m m e , a n d m . k o b a -y a s h i . 1988. Southwestern pottery standardization: An eth-noarchaeological view from the Philippines. Kiva 53:101–12.

m o y e r , r . s . , d . r . b r a d l e y, m . h . s o r e n s o n , j . c .w h i t i n g , a n d d . p . m a n s fi e l d . 1978. Psychophysicalfunctions for perceived and remembered size. Science 200:330–32.

n o r w i c h , k . h . 1983. On the theory of Weber fractions. Per-ception and Psychophysics 42: 286–98.

p a l m e r , j . 1988. Very short-term visual memory for size andshape. Perception and Psychophysics 43:278–86.

p e l l i , d . g . , a n d b . f a r e l l . 1992. Visual memory. Paperpresented at the ECVP meeting in Pisa, August 31, and on fileat the Institute for Sensory Research, Syracuse University, Syr-acuse, N.Y.

p e t e r s , m . , a n d p . c a m p a g n a ro . 1996. Do women reallyexcel over men in manual dexterity? Journal of ExperimentalPsychology 22:1107–12.

r i c e , p . m . 1991. “Specialization, standardization, and diver-sity: A retrospective,” in The ceramic legacy of Anna O. Shep-ard. Edited by R. L. Bishop and F. W. Lange, pp. 257–79. Boul-der: University of Colorado Press.

ro s s , h . e . , a n d r . l . g r e g o ry. 1964. Is the Weber frac-tion a function of physical or perceived input? Quarterly Jour-nal of Experimental Psychology 16:116–22.

t e g h t s o o n i a n , r . 1971. On the exponents in Stevens’ lawand the constant in Ekman’s law. Psychological Review 78:71–80.

t o r r e n c e , r . 1986. Production and exchange of stone tools.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

w e b e r , e . h . 1834. De Pulen, Resorptione, Auditu et Tactu:Annotationes Anatomicae et Physiologicae. Leipzig: Kohler.

Regions Based on Social Structure:A Reconsideration (or Apologia forDiffusionism)1

andrey korotayev andalexander kazankovLaboratory of Social and Cultural Anthropology,Institute of Cultural Anthropology, Russian StateUniversity for the Humanities, 6 MiusskayaPloshchad’, Moscow 125267, Russia. 14 vii 99

Burton et al. (1996) propose a new regionalization of theworld based on social structure and display its main fea-tures in their figures 2, 3, and 13. Our attention wasimmediately attracted by the left side of figure 13, whichcontains three regions—Middle Old World, Canada-West, and Eurasian-Circumpolar. Most of the ethnicgroups populating these three regions belong to threelinguistic macrofamilies: Nostratic,2 Afrasian (Semito-Hamitic) (Illich-Svitych 1971–84, 1989; Dolgopolsky1964, 1989, 1995), and Sino-Caucasian3 (Starostin 1982,1984, 1989). As has recently been shown, these threemacrofamilies belong to a single megafamily (Starostin

1. q 2000 by The Wenner-Gren Foundation for AnthropologicalResearch. All rights reserved 0011-3204/2000/4104-0012$1.00.Thisresearch was supported by grants from the Russian Foundation forBasic Research (RFBR/RFFI # 97-06-80272) and the Russian Min-istry of Education (Language, Culture, Society Program). An earlierversion of the paper was presented at the annual meeting of theSociety for Cross-Cultural Research in Santa Fe, N.M., in February1999; we thank the participants in that meeting, especially CarolR. Ember, A. Kimball Romney, Melvin Ember, Robert L. Munroe,Victor C. de Munck, William T. Divale, Dmitri Bondarenko, OlgaArtemova, and Akop Nazaretyan, for many crucial suggestions thatimproved the present version of the paper. The advice and com-ments of Oleg Mudrak and Sergey Starostin of the Faculty of The-oretical and Applied Linguistics (Institute of Cultural Anthropol-ogy, Russian State University for the Humanities, Moscow) wereinvaluable in the development of the research. We also thank threereferees for CA for their comments. Of course, we take full re-sponsibility for the perspectives elaborated here.2. Substantial evidence linking the six linguistic families of the OldWorld—Indo-European, Uralian, Altaic, Dravidian, Kartvelian, andSemito-Hamitic (Afrasian) in terms of a single proto-language, Nos-tratic, was presented for the first time by the Russian linguist Illich-Svitych (1971–84). The historiography of the Nostratic problem istreated extensively in Manaster Ramer (1993). At present Afrasianis treated as a separate unit at the same taxonomic level as Nostraticand related to the latter (Orel 1995a, b; S. A. Starostin, personalcommunication, 1999).3. The Sino-Caucasian macrofamily, whose existence was dem-onstrated by Starostin (1984), consists of North Caucasian, Yenis-seian (Ketan), Sino-Tibetan, and Na-Dene. Languages belonging tothe North Caucasian family are Abkhaz, Abaza, Ubykh, Adyghe,Kabardian, Batsbi, Chechen, Ingush, Andi, Botlikh, Godoberi, Ka-rata, Akhvakh, Bagvalal, Tindi, Chamalal, Avar, Tsezi, Ginukh,Khvarshi, Inkhokvari, Bezhta, Gunzib, Lak, Dargwa, Lezghi, Ta-basaran, Agul, Rutul, Tsakhur, Kryz, Budukh, Archi, Udi, and Khin-alug (see, e.g., Nikolaev and Starostin 1994:8–14). The Yenisseianfamily includes at least two well-described languages, Ketan andKottan, the latter spoken in the 19th century in the Middle YenisseiBasin (Siberia).

Volume 41, Number 4, August–October 2000 F 669

1989; Orel 1995a, b).4 Orel suggests calling this mega-family the Palaeolithic (1995a:114). This name seemsmisleading, however, since at the end of Upper Palaeo-lithic there would have been other languages on the basisof which a number of other megafamilies developed (e.g.,those made up of the modern Austronesian, Austroasi-atic, and Macro-Penutian languages). We shall call thismegafamily NASCa (for Nostratic 1 Afrasian 1 Sino-Caucasian).

More than 90% of the three regions’ ethnic groupsspeak NASCa languages, and, moreover, NASCa-speak-ers are practically absent outside these three regions. Itis also significant that we find NASCa-speaking groupsin the North American part of the three-region megar-egion: the Eskimos, whose languages are Nostratic (Hel-imski 1987), and the Na-Dene groups, whose languagesare Sino-Caucasian (Nikolaev 1989). In the scattergramsof figures 1 and 2, based on Burton et al.’s raw data, thestructural area of the NASCa mega-family (fig. 2) vir-tually coincides with the three-regions megaregion (fig.1). NASCa is massively represented in all zones of thethree-region structural space. The three main zones ofthe megaregion are, however, much more intertwinedthan one would expect from Burton et al.’s diagram. Theexplanation is that that diagram shows the 90% confi-dence intervals for each region’s mean, thus omitting thevery considerable number of outliers that unite the threeregions, each rather smoothly flowing into its neighbor.The societies of the region not only cluster closely to-gether but display a statistically significant differencefrom the rest of the world on the unilinearity-matricen-

4. To the 148 cognates presented by Orel we can add our owncomparisons: (1) N. C. (Proto–North Caucasian) ggIw nV ‘arm’ (Sta-iàrostin 1984:#1.26), Nostr. (Nostratic) awing∧ ‘armpit’ (Illich-Svi-KÞtych 1971–84:#220); (2) N. C. kÉ ri ‘bark’ (Nikolaev and Starostinə1994:1378), Nostr. Kara ‘bark’ (Illich-Svitych 1971–84:#217); (3) N.C. wam i ‘gall’ (Starostin 1984:#33), Nostr. camV ‘tart’ (Illich-c ʔSvitych 1971–84:#54); (4) N. C. g tu (jV) ‘cat’ (Nikolaev and Sta-a#rostin 1994:433); (5) N. C. icV(w) ‘break’ (Nikolaev and Starostin1994:1379), Nostr. bi V ‘break’ (Illich-Svitych 1971–84:#12); (6) N.cÞC. dwirxe ‘child, son’ (Nikolaev and Starostin 1994:407), Nostr.wirZa ‘ungulate young’ (Dolgopolsky 1995:#39); (7) N. C. wErHVcÞ‘cold’ (Nikolaev and Starostin 1994:393), Nostr. ira ‘hoar-frost’KÞ(Illich-Svitych 1971–84:#230); (8) N. C. j mco ‘bull’ (Nikolaev andəStarostin 1994:1380), Nostr. Homsa ‘meat’ (Illich-Svitych 1971–84:#114); (9) N. C. janse ‘snow’ (Nikolaev and Starostin 1994:1389),Nostr. yan V ‘ice’ (Dolgopolsky 1995:#55); (10) N. C. h w mzzu

9k ı ı

‘honey’ (Starostin 1988:#5.14), Nostr. ‘honey, sweet tree-juice’majl(Illich-Svitych 1971–84:#276); (11) N. C. mu alV ‘mountain’ (Ni-Èkolaev and Starostin 1994:1393), Nostr. mAL∧ ‘mountain’ (Illich-Svitych 1971–84:#286); (12) N. C. cHapV(-lV) ‘left’ (Nikolaev andStarostin 1994:1391), Nostr. ZeFaw ‘left’ (Dolgopolsky 1995:#79);

9i

(13) N. C. z n u ‘navel’ (Nikolaev and Starostin 1994:1393), Nostr.o ʔHeFanPA ‘navel’ (Dolgopolsky 1995:#52); (14) N. C. pwıIlV ‘kindof deciduous tree’ (Starostin 1988:#3.9), Nostr. ulF V ‘poplar’ (Dol-p ìgopolsky 1995:#112); (15) N. C. GH n ‘pregnant’ (Nikolaev ando iàStarostin 1994:1396), Nostr. /a/n∧ ‘pregnant’ (Illich-Svitych^1971–84:#353); (16) N. C. gw r i ‘root’ (Nikolaev and Starostinıà ʔ1994:1397), Nostr. ir ‘root’ (Illich-Svitych 1971–84:#42); (17) N.

9^ a

C. dwiHV ‘wind’ (Nikolaev and Starostin 1994:407), Nostr. deFaHi‘shake, blow’ (Dolgopolsky 1995:#50). We have 45 other cognatesthat we do not mention here for reasons of space.

tricity dimension. A t-test5 which we performed pro-duced t p 6.4 (significant at much less than the 0.001level). The difference between the three-regions/NASCamegaregion and the rest of the world can also be clearlyseen in figure 3.6

Considering separately the structural zones of thethree NASCa macrofamilies (see figures 4, 5, and 6), itis apparent that the distinctive shape of the NASCamegaregion stretched from the highly patricentric andunilineal zone to the slightly matricentric nonunilinealone is mainly accounted for by the very clear-cut distri-bution of the Nostratic cultures. The Afrasian cultures,irrespective of their underrepresentation in the sample,seem to follow generally the same pattern. It is also clearthat the highly unilineal, slightly matricentric cluster(C) of the NASCa cultures is almost entirely accountedfor by Sino-Caucasian groups. The great difference be-tween the Nostratic and Sino-Caucasian zones is to aconsiderable degree artificial—it can to a large extent beexplained by the absence from the sample of any groupbelonging to the North Caucasian branch of the Sino-Caucasian macrofamily, as the social structure of thesegroups markedly follows the Middle Old World pattern(Avksent’ev 1973; Bliev 1989, Karpov 1993; Lavrov 1962:110, 135–36; 1981; Shamanov and Musukaev 1987; Kal-oev 1962:94–100). The NASCa peoples also display a sta-tistically significant difference from the rest of the worldon the matricentricity/patricentricity dimension (t p7.8, significant at less than the 0.001 level).

The NASCa megaregion conforms to all Burton et al.’scriteria—it contains societies which are geographicallycontiguous, it is perfectly possible to travel within itwithout crossing other regions, and, as has just beenshown, it has a considerable degree of historical con-nectedness. Even its North American part is connectedwith the rest of it both by historical migrations and bylong-term connections with Northeast Asia through theEskimos (Helimski 1984:37–38; Ousley 1995). Indeed,the intensity of these connections is much greater thanthat of the connections between New Guinea and Aus-tralia, which are united by Burton et al. (1996) in one(Sahul) region.7 Of course, the NASCa megaregion differs

5. The t-test technique was, of course, originally developed to beapplied to the analysis of interval-level data only. The coordinatesgenerated by correspondence analysis should naturally be regardedas ordinal-level variables. However, as has been shown by Labowitz(1970), in many cases it is justifiable to analyze ordinal data as ifthey were interval data, especially when the number of ordinalcategories is large enough—which is the case as regards the matri/patricentricity and unilinearity/bilaterality scores. The applicabil-ity of t-tests is further enhanced by the fact that the distributionof the respective scores in most cases is quite close to normal.6. We would like to stress, however, that we are proposing a sta-tistically valid macroscopic grouping of regions which differ sig-nificantly from one another—a sociostructural region of a highertaxonomic level than that of the regions proposed by Burton et al.,that is, a megaregion consisting of regions.7. Both Sahul and Asian and American Beringia were unified ar-chaeological provinces in the late Pleistocene. Sahul at the time ofthe last glaciation consisted of New Guinea and Australia linkedby a broad landmass. Up to the beginning of the Holocene (10,000b.p.) it was archaeologically characterized by rather undiversified


Fig. 1. The three-region megaregion. Asterisk, Middle Old World; cross, North Eurasia and Circumpolar (Eura-sian-Circumpolar); dot, Northern and Western North America (Canada-West).

from all the other regions only on the matricentric/pat-

“flaked stone tool” industries (White and O’Connell 1982:50). Sim-ilarly, in Beringia, which linked Asia and North America in the eraof the Wurm-Valdai glaciation, the two continents were culturallyunited by related Dyuktai and Clovis-related industries and later,at the very end of Pleistocene, by Anangula-related assemblageswhich obviously originated in eastern continental Asia and reachedboth Japan and Alaska (Argunov 1990:203–5; Vasilievsky 1975:113–21; Laughlin 1963). The Holocene fortunes of the Sahul andBeringia (as potential cultural bridges) were, however, quite differ-ent. Beringia continued to serve as a bridge for (1) the bearers ofthe Proto–Na-Dene languages, (2) the bearers of the Arctic SmallTool industries, and (3) the classical Eskimo (Inuit) cultures, the

ricentric dimension, but the same could be said of some

first of which—Norton—possessed ceramics of Asian origin (Dze-niskevitch 1987:5–6; Griffin 1970:327–30; Dumond 1975:167–80;Ousley 1995:427–58). Nothing of this kind happened in HoloceneSahul. The emerging Torres Strait (ca. 8,000 b.p. [White andO’Connell 1982:98–99]) served as a barrier to New Guinean settlersand their pigs, horticulture, bows and arrows, and ceramics. Thefirst evidence of horticulture in New Guinea (in the high-lands—ditches and probably pigs) is dated to 9,000 b.p., but in thelowlands and on the coasts, despite the efforts of international ar-chaeologists, the earliest Holocene data are only 3,920 5 90 b.p.(White and O’Connell 1982:197; see also 173, 188–91). At the sametime, there is no archaeological hiatus between Pleistocene and


Fig. 2. The NASCa megafamily. Three-pointed star, Afrasian; four-pointed star, Nostratic; six-pointed star,Sino-Caucasian, Eurasia; eight-pointed star, Sino-Caucasian, North America.

of Burton et al.’s regions as well. Africa and Sahul (or

Holocene on the northern Australian coasts (pp. 100–104). In latertimes linguistic Proto-Melanesians with their Lapita and Lapitoidceramics (from about 1500 b.c.) settled almost all of the northern,eastern, and southern coasts of New Guinea and a great numberof islands farther east but never appeared in Australia (Allen 1996:11, 13, 24–26). In historical times there were contacts, trade, andintermarriage between New Guineans and Queensland Australiansbut never settlement (Flood 1983:219–25). New Guinean gene flowdid not drive Queensland Aboriginal cranial characteristics out ofthe general Australian range (Larnach and Macintosh 1970:176).Most Australian Holocene cultural innovations (e.g., microliths,the dingo) diffused from Asia (probably via Kimberley) and not fromNew Guinea (Flood 1983:186–99).

Circumpolar, Northwest Coast, and Mesoamerica-An-des) also differ from each other on this dimension only,without displaying any statistically significant differ-ences on the bilaterality/unilinearity dimension. Theunity of the megaregion seems to be explained in termsof the spread of the NASCa-speaking peoples from a sin-gle region. Nostratic, Afrasian, and Sino-Caucasian ap-pear to have originated in adjacent geographic regionsconcentrated in the Near East (Peiros 1984:6; Illich-Svi-tych 1971–84; Militarev and Schnirel’man 1984). Theunity of the megaregion, especially of its Asiatic andNorth American parts, would be significantly reinforced


table 1Intensity of Cultivation Nostrates versus∗

Austronesians

Intensity ofCultivation

Nostrates versus Austronesians

0 (Austronesians) 1 (Nostrates) Total

0 (Horticulture) 32 (78%) 0 (0%) 321 (Intensive

agriculture)9 (22%) 17 (100%) 26

Total 41 (100%) 17 (100%) 58

phi p 0.714; p ! 0.001 (Fisher’s Exact Test)

table 2Plow Nostrates versus Austronesians (Agriculture 1∗

45%)

Plow

Nostrates versus Austronesians

0 (Austronesians) 1 (Nostrates) Total

0 (Absent) 41 (84%) 1 (5%) 421 (Present) 8 (16%) 19 (95%) 27

Total 49 (100%) 20 (100%) 69

phi p 0.731; p ! 0.001 (Fisher’s Exact Test)

table 3Correlations

Matricentricity

Pearson r p (one-tailed)

Agriculture 0.357 ! 0.001Fishing 0.058 0.139Hunting 20.157 0.002Gathering 20.311 ! 0.001Animal husbandry 20.188 ! 0.001Fig. 3. The three-regions/NASCa megaregion and the

rest of the world (90% confidence intervals).

if the recently proposed hypothesis of a North Pacificmegafamily (Nikolaev and Mudrak 1989) turned out tobe correct. According to Mudrak (personal communi-cation, 1999), this megafamily is made up of the lan-guages of the Chukchees, Koryaks, Itelmens, and Gilyaksof the Asian Pacific coast and the Algonquians, Mosans,and Wakashans of North America. As figure 7 shows, allthe cultures of this hypothetical linguistic macrogroupfall squarely within the NASCa structural zone. If weadded the North Pacific cultures to the NASCa ones, theresulting sociostructural zone would look even more ho-mogeneous (see figure 8).

We also have some suggestions regarding the divisionof the NASCa megaregion into subregions. We have thestrongest doubts with respect to Burton et al.’s (1996)“North Eurasia and Circumpolar” region. Some featuresof Eskimo social structure do look very similar to Eu-ropean ones, but is, for example, the fact that most Eu-ropeans use Eskimo kinship terminology really to be ex-plained by their belonging to the same region as the In-uit? It seems much more plausible to explain this in

terms of similar types of kin-family organization(wherein the nuclear family is the most important kin-ship unit, suprafamily kinship structures [bilateral kin-dreds] being extremely loose, and so on) which developedconvergently as similar adaptations to rather differentsocial and ecological environments.

At the same time, it seems possible to show that mostEuropeans belonged not so long ago to the Middle OldWorld region, displaying in addition to patricentricity aconsiderable (and comparable with the rest of the MiddleOld World) degree of unilinearity. For example, it hasbeen shown that the Romans finally moved from a uni-lineal to a bilateral type of social organization at the endof the 1st millennium b.c. (Krjukov 1972:55–85) and theSlavs experienced a similar social transformation at theend of the 1st and the beginning of the 2d millennium(Lavrovskij 1867:33–37, 46–50; Krjukov 1968:376–78;1995);8 the social organization of ancient Celts was alsorather unilineal (Shkunaev 1989:74–93, 107–14). One ofthe major landmarks on the way to the split from theMiddle Old World seems to be the virtual extinction ofunilineal forms of social organization in most of the ter-ritory of the Roman empire, further reinforced by theChristianization of the empire (see, e.g., Goody 1983:44–46). In the Middle Ages this region appears to have

8. Whereas some populations of the mountainous areas of eastern,central, and southern Europe retained considerably unilineal socialstructures until the 20th century (see, e.g., Kosven 1963).


Fig. 4. Nostratic cultures.

virtually coincided with the territory of the Christianstates.9

How might the boundaries of this region be delimited?Burton et al.’s (1996) sample contains only three Euro-pean ethnic groups (Irish, Czechs, and French Canadi-ans), and these groups represent three major Europeangroups (Celts, Slavs, and Romans) which split from theMiddle Old World relatively recently. It does not repre-sent Germany and southern and eastern Europe at all.

9. The unilinearity index of the only core ethnic group of a non-European Christian state found in Burton et al.’s sample (Amhara)is closer to those of European societies than to those of Middle OldWorld ones.

However, it does not appear difficult to show that theseareas belong squarely to the European region. We havemade a statistical comparison of the European societiesin the Ethnographic Atlas with the ethnic groups of themajor Middle Old World civilizations, using a muchlarger sample (Byelorussians, Ukrainians, Russians,Hungarians, Serbs, Bulgarians, Lithuanians, Czechs,Cheremis, Hutsuls, and Romanians for “Eastern” Eu-rope; Brazilians, Walloons, Dutch, Neapolitans, NewEngland, Spanish Basques, Spaniards, French Canadians,Boers, Irish, Tristan, Romans, Icelanders, Basques, andPortuguese for “Western” Europe) and the followingMurdock variables: 6, Mode of marriage; 8, Domestic


Fig. 5. Sino-Caucasian cultures.

organization; 9, Marital composition (monogamy and po-lygamy); 11, Transfer of residence at marriage; 22, Sec-ondary cognatic kin group: kindreds and ramages; and74, Inheritance, distribution of real property (land). Wefound no statistically significant differences betweenWestern and Eastern Europe, whereas both West and EastEuropean societies displayed statistically significant dif-ferences with all the main Middle Old World civiliza-tions on most of the variables (Alaev and Korotayev1999). The differences between the Middle Old Worldcivilizations turned out to be much less significant,which seems to confirm the reality not only of the Mid-dle Old World region but also of the European one.

Burton et al. (1996) place the three European ethnicgroups (Czechs, Irish, and French Canadians) togetherwith such peoples as Saami (Lapps), Eskimo (Inuit), andYukaghir in North Eurasia and the Circumpolar region.We have already mentioned that the similarity of therelatively modern Europeans to the hunters and reindeerbreeders of the circumpolar areas is to be explained byconvergent sociocultural adaptations at very differentlevels of macrosocial development. In addition, had themajority of the North Siberian peoples (Evenks andEvens, Dolgans, Yakuts, Buryats, Ulches, Nanai, Oroch,and Orochon, Golds) been included in the sample theymight have shown basically the Middle Old World pat-


Fig. 6. Afrasian cultures.

tern, with moderate patricentricity and noticeably higherunilinearity than the average for Burton et al.’s (1996)Circumpolar region.10 For them the exact values of thecorresponding sociostructural variables have yet to becollected and evaluated, but the available data seem toshow patricentric unilineal patterns more characteristicof the Middle Old World than of the Circumpolar region(Levin and Potapov 1956, 1964; Gurvich and Dolgih

10. The regional affiliation of the Gilyak (Nivh) is not so clear.Their pattern appears to be closer to the Middle Old World thanto the Circumpolar. Could this not be the result of the influenceof the above-mentioned Amur Basin peoples (Ulches, Nanai, Oroch,Orochon, and others)?

1970:76–77, 271–72; Novitskij 1941 [1715]; Krader 1954;Smoljak 1966:116–7; Gemuev 1980:87–96; Simchenko1974:270–91; Tugolukov 1985:22–38, 56–62, 80–93, 95;Homich 1966). Both their linguistic affiliations and thehistorical record point to their early migration fromregions more southerly (i.e., on the peripheries of theMiddle Old World, such as Manchuria, Trans-Baikal, andthe Sayan Mountains) than their present locations.Therefore they must have experienced the strong influ-ence of Middle Old World cultural patterns during theirformative stages. At the same time, some of these ex-clusively Nostratic peoples (e.g., Nganasans, Ents, Mansi[Vogul], and Hanty [Ostyak]) appear to have absorbed


Fig. 7. The North Pacific megafamily.

enough of the local Palaeosiberian substrate to displaycharacteristics similar to those of the Saami or Yukaghir(Popov 1948; Vasil’ev 1987:133–43; Simchenko 1974:270–91; Dolgih 1962:217–21; Fajnberg 1962:227).

It remains to be shown (presumably by archaeologicalresearch in Russia) whether the Circumpolar is a pseu-doregion where similar characteristics in terms of patri-/matricentricity and linearity were caused by severeecological pressure or whether there was indeed a cul-tural bridge between the Lapps and the Inuit (if the latterin prehistoric times occupied the whole of the Asianpolar coast). The situation might be clarified if the lin-guistic affiliation of the Siirtya could be established

(Homich 1966:75; Chernetsov 1935; Lamartinyer 1912:50–53, 91–93; Linshoten 1915:484).11

Burton et al. include in the North Eurasia and Cir-cumpolar region four East Asian ethnic groups (Ainu,Koreans, Japanese, and Okinawans) which display, sim-ilarly to Europeans, strong erosion of the linearity of theirsocial organization. We would rather consider these East

11. The hunter-gatherers of the tip of South America (Ona andYahgan) may, convergently with the northern Circumpolar regionpeoples, have developed very weak linearity due to their relativeproximity to the South Pole and, consequently, rather similar ec-ological conditions. Thus, it might be possible to speak about a truecircumpolar “pseudoregion” covering all the circumpolar areas.


Fig. 8. Structural zone of NASCa 1 North Pacific megafamily. Three-pointed star, Afrasian; four-pointed star,Nostratic; six-pointed star, Sino-Caucasian, Eurasia; eight-pointed star, Sino-Caucasian, North America; five-pointed star, North Pacific.

Asian groups as convergently forming a separate (“Ex-treme East Asian”) region with certain patterns struc-turally similar to those of the Europeans.

The Nostratic part of the NASCa megaregion is of spe-cial interest. It is impressive not only for its salient pat-ricentricity but also for its shape—its distinct stretchingalong the AB axis (fig. 4). This reflects the presence of arather strong (R2 p 20.67, significant at the 0.001K

level) negative correlation between unilinearity and mat-ricentricity (and hence a strong positive correlation be-tween unilinearity and patricentricity). Thus, figure 4

reveals a rather distinct evolutionary pattern. Histori-cally, various Nostratic peoples covered considerableevolutionary distances within the unilinearity-matricen-tricity structural space, but in these movements increas-ing unilinearity was accompanied by increasing patri-centricity12 and declining unilinearity by declining

12. This seems to have been the case, for example, in early medievalIndia (see, e.g., Alaev 1981).


Fig. 9. Southeast Asia and Insular Pacific.

patricentricity.13 The parallel significant increase in uni-linearity and matricentricity has turned out to be almostentirely absent among the Nostrates (though, as we shallsee below, it is entirely normal for peoples belonging tosome other linguistic families). It looks as if it wasmainly the evolutionary movements of the Nostraticpeoples along the AB axis which gave the NASCa clusterits distinctive shape.

Though the direction of the correlation between uni-linearity and matricentricity for Sino-Caucasian peoples

13. This was the case, for example, in many parts of early medievalEurope (see references above).

(fig. 5) is identical with the Nostratic one, it is statisti-cally insignificant (p p 0.4). As was mentioned above,this, of course, may be at least partly explained by theabsence of North Caucasian peoples from the sample.

The correlation for the Afrasian part of NASCa is inthe same direction (R2 p 20.28) but even less significantstatistically (p p 0.55). However, for the Afrasian peoplesof the Middle Old World the strength of the correlationreaches an extremely high value (R2 p 0.994) which isstatistically significant (p ! 0.001) even though the num-ber of cases in the sample is extremely small. The sup-position that historically the Afrasian peoples of the Mid-


Fig. 10. Austronesian Sahul.

dle Old World followed the Nostratic evolutionarypattern seems plausible. Indeed, movement along the BAaxis (in the direction of A) seems to be attested, for ex-ample, for ancient r medieval r modern Egypt (see Ber-lev 1978; Stuchevskij 1982; Fihman 1976; Semenova1974; Ammar 1954; Ayrout 1954; Berque 1955, 1957;Roshchin 1980; Bobrovnikov 1998) and ancient Yemen(Korotayev 1995; Frantsouzoff 1995, 1997).14

14. A bit surprisingly, speakers of the languages of the hypotheticalNorth Pacific megafamily also display a distinctly Nostratic dis-tribution pattern (R2 p 20.45; p p 0.02). Of course, it seems pos-sible to argue that these correlations are to a considerable extenta result of autocorrelation. Indeed, the blank spaces in the lower

In addition to a patricentric megaregion it may be pos-

right and left corners of the scattergrams do not appear to be theresults of any real causal link precluding societies from achievingextreme levels of patri- or matricentricity and bilaterality at thesame time. This is impossible simply by definition, as some traitshave high positive scores on both dimensions. For example, mat-rilineal sibs have high scores on both the matricentric and unilinealdimensions, and therefore in order to get the maximum matricen-tricity score a society must have matrilineal sibs but if it has themwill not have the minimum unilinearity (i.e., the maximum bila-terality) score. One would expect that this autocorrelation wouldaffect mainly the groups of societies with the maximum patricen-tricity or matricentricity scores. However, when we come acrossgroups with very strong correlation, it does not seem possible to


Fig. 11. Non-Austronesian Sahul.

sible to distinguish a matricentric one that would uniteSoutheast Asia and Insular Pacific (most of whose ethnicgroups speak Austronesian languages) and the Austro-nesian part of Sahul (Sahul being Australia 1 NewGuinea 1 Melanesia). Figures 9, 10, and 11 show thatAustronesian Sahul (mainly coinciding with the Austro-nesian part of Melanesia) occupies an intermediate po-

explain it by the autocorrelation alone. And when we compare theNostratic peoples (R2 p 20.67; p ! 0.001) with the CalifornianIndians, who have even higher average patrilinearity scores thanthe Nostrates but a correlation of 20.09 (p p 0.39), it becomes clearthat the autocorrelation only partly accounts for the Nostraticpattern.

sition between Southeast Asia and Insular Pacific andNon-Austronesian (Papuan and Australian) Sahul. In-deed, Austronesian Sahul is different in a statisticallysignificant way from Southeast Asia and Insular Pacificon the unilinearity/bilaterality dimension (t p 6.0; p !

0.001) without showing any statistically significant dif-ferent from Papuans and Australians (t p 20.3; p p 0.8).It is not, however, significantly different from SoutheastAsia and Insular Pacific on the matricentricity/patricen-tricity dimension (t p 0.2; p p 0.8), displaying the mostsignificant difference from Papuans and Australians (t p24.2; p ! 0.001; see also fig. 12, where the ellipses showthe 90% confidence intervals for the subregion’s means).


Fig. 12. Austronesian versus non-Austronesian Sahul(90% confidence intervals).

Thus, there are sufficient statistical grounds either tounite Melanesia with both Non-Austronesian Sahul andmainly Austronesian Southeast Asia and Insular Pacificin one region or to consider it as a region separate fromboth of them. We are inclined to consider it a relativelyseparate region forming a megaregion with SoutheastAsia and Insular Pacific. Indeed, we cannot believe thatit is mere coincidence that most of the ethnic groupswith the maximum matricentricity values in the tworegions are Austronesians. Hence, it appears that thismatricentric megaregion must have been formed by thediffusion of Austronesian cultures. We would suggestcalling it Austronesia (or in view of the presence of aconsiderable number of non-Austronesian-speakers inSoutheast Asia, Southeast Asia and Austronesia). TheAustronesian scattergram is almost mirror reflection ofthe Nostratic one (see fig. 13), with an increase in uni-linearity here being correlated with an increase in ma-tricentricity (10.62; p ! 0.001).15 Thus, we can observe

15. However, this correlation is significant only for unilinearityvalues ! 0.0. We would suggest two explanations for this phenom-enon: (1) It is difficult to consider as a coincidence the fact that thecluster of the Austronesian ethnic groups characterized by the high-est unilinearity scores (among the Austronesians) and matricen-tricity scores lower than those of other Austronesians with com-parably high unilinearity are the Melanesians—precisely theAustronesians that interacted with the highly unilineal and sig-nificantly less matricentric Non-Austronesian Sahul (actually, withits Papuan part). Hence, the impression is that the peculiar featuresof the Melanesian part of Austronesia might be (at least partly)explained by the influence of the Papuan substrate. Actually, com-parison of figures 9–11 suggests that the Melanesian part of Aus-tronesia has been subtracted from the Austronesian axis BD by theattraction of the Non-Austronesian Sahul (while that part of thelatter which interacted with the Austronesian world appears tohave been attracted in the matricentric direction). Since the Mel-anesian is precisely the part of the Austronesia characterized bythe highest unilinearity scores, this could at least partly explain

two megaregions, one (Nostratic/NASCa) with a pre-vailing patricentric pattern and the other (Austronesia)with a prevailing matricentric one. What could accountfor this difference? The first thing that came to mindwas to connect it with horticulture. Indeed, the matri-centric pattern correlates with matrilinearity, whereasalmost the only empirically supported correlate of mat-rilinearity suggested at the moment is horticulture(Aberle 1961), contested, however, by Divale (1974). Thefirst statistical tests of the data seemed to support thishypothesis. We contrasted intensive agricultural socie-ties with horticultural ones, comparing their values onMurdock’s (1967, 1981; Murdock et al. 1986, 1990) var-iable 28, Intensity of cultivation, code 4 (horticulture)with their values for codes 5 and 6 (intensive agriculture)and contrasting agricultural societies (Atlas variable 5,code 4, dependent on agriculture more than 45%) coded1 (no plow animals) on variable 39, Animals and plowcultivation, with those coded 2 and 3 (plow agriculture).Horticulture is prevalent among the Austronesians butrare among the Nostrates (see table 1). Horticulture ver-sus intensive agriculture does, however, prove to be arather strong predictor of matricentricity (see fig. 14).The same situation can be observed with respect to theplow (see table 2). The plow turns out to be a ratherstrong predictor of patricentricity (see fig. 15; see also,e.g., Boserup 1970, Goody 1976, Burton and White 1984).

Hence, the answer seems clear—the Nostrates are sopatricentric because they are predominantly intensiveplow agriculturalists, whereas the Austronesians are somatricentric because they are predominantly non-plowhorticulturalists. Yet, we believe the real answer is notso simple. To see this it is sufficient to examine theNostratic and Austronesian cases in figures 14 and 15(see figs. 16 and 17). Though the Austronesians are in-deed predominantly horticulturalists, there are still anumber of Austronesian peoples with intensive plow ag-riculture. Fortunately, Burton et al.’s (1996) sample con-

the absence of a positive correlation between matricentricity andunilinearity among the highly unilineal Austronesians and hencethe “rarefaction” observed around zone E of the scattergrams. (2)Ember and Ember present evidence that “societies with unilinealdescent groups are transformed into ambilineal ones . . . in thepresence of depopulation. . . . Depopulation may transform a pre-viously unilocal society into a bilocal society. If that previouslyunilocal society had unilineal descent groups, the descent groupsmay become transformed into ambilineal groups” (1996:230; theevidence supporting this statement is presented in Ember and Em-ber 1972; see also Pasternak, Ember, and Ember 1997:264 and Ser-vice 1962:137 for the first statement of the hypothesis in question).Any transition from matrilineal descent groups to ambilineal oneswould result in the simultaneous lowering of both unilinearity andmatricentricity indexes (Burton et al. 1996:93–94). Hence, if theEmbers-Service hypothesis is correct, then, taking into considera-tion the well-known fact of the severe depopulation of Polynesiaas a result of the introduction of European diseases, one wouldexpect that in the precontact period the Polynesian cultures nowoccupying the zone just next to structural area E (Burton et al. 1996:97–98) extended well into this zone. Hence, one would suggest thatin the precontact period the Nostratic and Austronesian structuralzones looked even more symmetrical. In general, it seems as if theEuropean diseases decimated not only the population of Polynesiabut also zone E of the scattergrams.


Fig. 13. Nostratic versus Austronesian cultures. Four-pointed star, Nostratic; square, Austronesian.

tains quite a few of them. In addition, close study offigures 16 and 17 reveals that the intensive and/or plowAustronesians are not only very significantly more mat-ricentric than their Nostratic counterparts but also nodifferent from horticultural Austronesians. This obser-vation can be confirmed statistically (see figs. 18–21). Itseems evident that intensive agricultural Austronesiansare significantly more matricentric than intensive agri-cultural Nostrates (see fig. 19) and that plow Austrone-sians are significantly more matricentric than plow Nos-trates (see fig. 20). At the same time, the differencebetween intensive agricultural and horticultural Austro-nesians is entirely insignificant (see fig. 21), and non-

plow and plow Austronesians display virtually no dif-ference at all on the matricentricity dimension.

The tests do not appear to support the horticulture/agriculture hypothesis and in fact suggest that the re-verse could be the case. The first tests showed such aclose relationship among agriculturalists between inten-sive plow agriculture and patricentricity and betweennon-plow horticulture and matricentricity simply be-cause most intensive plow agriculturalists in the sampleare Nostrates whereas most non-plow horticulturalistsare Austronesians. Rather than explain the Nostrate/Austronesian difference by the horticulture/plow factor,it may be justifiable to explain the difference between


Fig. 14. Intensity of cultivation versus matricentric-ity, version 1 (t p 6.3; p ! 0.001).

Fig. 16. Intensity of cultivation versus matricentric-ity, version 2. no, Nostrates; an, Austronesians (see ap-pendix for codes).

Fig. 15. Plow versus matricentricity (agriculture 1

45%), version 1 (t p 4.8; p ! 0.001).

intensive non-plow horticultural and intensive plow ag-ricultural societies on the matricentricity dimension bythe Nostratic/Austronesian factor. It is not surprising,therefore, that once we exclude the Nostratic and Aus-tronesian cases, the relations between the plow and pat-ricentricity and between horticulture and matricentric-ity become totally insignificant (see figs. 22, 23).

The fact that the plow-horticulture factor actuallyhides the Nostratic/Austronesian one (which also over-whelms a number of other subsistence factors) can beespecially clearly shown through multiple regressionanalyses. To start with, we apparently observe a signif-icant correlation between matricentricity and four outof the first five variables of the Atlas—dependence onagriculture, hunting, gathering, and animal husbandry(see table 3). When we add matricentricity as a dependentvariable and the two strong subsistence parameterswhich are more relevant for Nostrates and Austronesians(agriculture and animal husbandry), together with inten-sity of cultivation or the plow as independent variables,all these variables in both cases turn out to be significant(see tables 4 and 5). However, once we add the Nostratic/Austronesian factor to the regression model,. only thisfactor turns out to be really important, completely over-whelming both the plow and intensity of agriculture aswell as two other subsistence factors (see tables 6, 7, 8,and 9).16 It is clear that these findings have a direct re-

16. Animal husbandry only turns out to be a slightly significantfactor in regression 4, but even here this factor is incomparablyweaker than the Nostratic/Austronesian factor. Somewhat similarresults are reported by Burton and Reitz (1981), who discover that“the control for region eliminates the relationship between plowagriculture and the female contribution to crop tending” (p. 275).



45%), version 2, no, Nostrates; an, Austronesians (seeappendix for codes).

table 4Regression 1, Dependent Variable Matricentricity

IndependentVariables

StandardizedBeta

Coefficient p

Agriculture 0.164 0.044Animal husbandry 20.331 0.0003Intensity of cultivation 20.361 0.0002

R p 0.582; R2 p 0.339; adjusted R2 p 0.322



StandardizedBeta

Coefficient p

Agriculture 0.477 ! 0.00000000000000001Animal husbandry 20.214 0.00002Plow 20.243 0.000003

R p 0.499; R2 p 0.249; adjusted R2 p 0.243



StandardizedBeta

Coefficient p

Agriculture 0.120 0.223Animal husbandry 20.194 0.132Intensity of cultivation 20.180 0.212Nostrates (1) versus

Austronesians (0)20.553 0.0001

R p 0.813; R2 p 0.660; adjusted R2 p 0.635



StandardizedBeta

Coefficient p

Agriculture 20.012 0.896Animal husbandry 20.149 0.040Plow 20.033 0.739Nostrates (1) versus

Austronesians (0)20.730 0.0000000001

R p 0.818; R2 p 0.669; adjusted R2 p 0.653



StandardizedBeta

Coefficient p

Intensity of cultivation 20.167 0.158Nostrates (1) versus

Austronesians (0)20.669 0.0000004

R p 0.796; R2 p 0.634; adjusted R2 p 0.621

lation to Galton’s problem (the problem of network au-tocorrelation). In fact, we seem to be dealing with some-thing similar to “the Bantu factor” discovered by Burton,White, and Dow in their study of the sexual division oflabor in agriculture (White, Burton, and Dow 1981, Dow,White, and Burton 1983, Burton and White 1984). Theyfound that “Bantu societies have consistently higher fe-male participation in agriculture than would be predictedby [their] model. This effect seems to show the effect ofcultural traditions on a group of societies that migratedthrough much of Africa in the recent past” (Burton andWhite 1984:580). Our findings seem to suggest that asimilarly strong effect may be produced by migrationsnot only in the recent past but millennia ago. Hence,attempts to control for network autocorrelation effectsshould consider not only close linguistic relations on thelevel of subfamilies but also more distant relations on




StandardizedBeta

Coefficient p

Plow 20.080 0.250Nostrates (1) versus

Austronesians (0)20.769 ! 0.00000000000000001

R p 0.808; R2 p 0.654; adjusted R2 p 0.646

Fig. 19. Plow Austronesians versus plow Nostrates(agriculture 1 45%) (t p 6.5; p ! 0.001). no, Nostrates;an, Austronesians (see appendix for codes).

Fig. 18. Intensive agricultural Austronesians versusintensive agricultural Nostrates (t p 5.4; p ! 0.001).no, Nostrates; an, Austronesians (see appendix forcodes).

the level of linguistic families and even macro- andmegafamilies.

On a more concrete level, worldwide cross-culturalresearch should take into account the Nostratic17/Aus-tronesian factor (especially with respect to those varia-bles which act as the main contributors to the matri-centricity/patricentricity scores). Nostrates and Aus-tronesians are heavily present in most worldwide cross-cultural samples,18 and this may be a strong source ofnetwork autocorrelation. A practical suggestion forchecking the Nostratic/Austronesian factor without em-ploying complicated mathematical techniques would beto try to replicate the findings on a subsample excludingAustronesian and Nostratic cases (and possibly even all

17. And possibly even the NASCa factor. The absence of strongmatricentric cases in the whole of the NASCa subsample can hardlybe a coincidence.18. Which is not surprising, as they cover half of the populatedglobe and constitute almost half of its population, whereas NASCaand Austronesia cover more than half of the populated globe andconstitute the majority of its population.

the NASCa ones). As we have shown above, this simpleprocedure may reduce what once seemed a rather strongcorrelation to insignificance.

In general, we seem to observe the following worldregional structure on the matricentricity/patricentricitydimension: On the one hand, we have a few regions withmoderate levels of patri- or matricentricity in which pat-ricentric and matricentric societies frequently overlap.On the other hand, we observe two megaregions, one ofwhich (Austronesia) is predominantly and pronouncedlymatricentric19 and the other (NASCa) is predominantlyand pronouncedly patricentric.20 The resulting impres-sion is that rather early in history a very strong matri-centric pattern was formed in the Austronesian home-land and a rather strong patricentric pattern (whichbecame particularly strong among the Proto-Nostrates)in the NASCa homeland. Later these two patterns appearto have diffused enormously, forming two megaregions.21

It appears to be this diffusion and not regular interactionwithin preindustrial “world systems” that explains theformation of these megaregions. Indeed, it does not seempossible to find any convincing grounds for consideringsuch cultures as the Inuit, the Dravidians, and the Celts(or the Malays, the Hawaiians, and the Trobrianders) partof any preindustrial world system.

The almost uninterrupted patricentricity of the

19. That is, matricentric societies constitute its overwhelming ma-jority (1 93%); most of its cultures have strong matricentricityscores (1 1 1.00); most of the world’s cultures with strong matri-centricity scores belong to this megaregion.20. That is, patricentric societies constitute its overwhelming ma-jority (ca. 90%); most of its cultures have strong patricentricityscores (! 20.50); most of the world’s cultures with strong patri-centricity scores (and almost all the cultures with the highest pa-tricentricity scores [! 21.50]) belong to this megaregion.21. Their internal subdivision into regions seems to be mainly ac-counted for by the dynamics on the unilinearity dimension.


Fig. 20. Intensive agricultural Austronesians versushorticultural Austronesians (t p 1.2; p p 0.24) (seeappendix for codes).

Fig. 22. Intensity of cultivation versus matricentric-ity, excluding Nostrates and Austronesians (t p 0.99;p p 0.33).

Fig. 21. Non-plow Austronesians versus plow Austro-nesians (agriculture 1 45%) (t p 0.034; p p 0.971).

NASCa megaregion (and especially of its Nostratic part)and the almost uninterrupted matricentricity of the Aus-tronesian megaregion in comparison with the much lesshomogeneous picture of the other regions suggest thatwithin the NASCa megaregion (and especially its Nos-tratic part) patricentricity was proliferating at the ex-pense of matricentricity, whereas the opposite modelmay be suggested for the formation of the Austronesianmegaregion. With respect to the latter, however, a pos-sible objection could be raised: Because matrilinearity isone of the main contributors to the matricentricity in-dex, it is difficult to imagine the formation of such ahuge matricentric megaregion as the Austronesian at thecost of the loss of patricentricity of some of the culturesaffected by the diffusion of the Austronesian patternwithout a transition from patrilinearity to matrilinearityat least in some places. Yet, already in the last centuryTylor noticed that whereas there were many known in-stances of the transition from matrilinearity to patrilin-earity, there were no known instances of the reverse (Ty-lor 1961 [1889]). This view was endorsed by Murdock,who even claimed that the direct transition from patri-linearity to matrilinearity was impossible (1949:190).Fortunately, at least one case of such a transition isknown—the Rejung of southern Sumatra shifted frompatrilineal to matrilineal descent under the influence ofthe Minangkabau (Pershits and Bromlej 1981:186). Infact, this case shows how the Austronesian matricentricpattern could have proliferated; what is more, it seemsto show that this pattern continued to diffuse in Aus-tronesia up to this century.

It appears that the matricentricity/patricentricity di-



45%), excluding Nostrates and Austronesians (t p1.17; p p 0.26).

mension better reflects ancient historical “genetic” con-nectedness—shared ancient cultural heritage. Matricen-tricity/patricentricity scores turn out to be extremely“conservative”; they change very slowly over time andtend to be rather resistant to the action of external fac-tors. It is rather surprising indeed to observe the Nos-trates covering a huge portion of the globe (from southernIndia to the Canadian polar archipelago, from Britain toJapan), populating very different environments and hav-ing such different subsistence systems (hunting and gath-ering in Siberia and North America, nomadic pastoralismin Central Asia, various types of agriculture in Eurasia),sociopolitical structures (from the Inuit or Siberian hunt-ers’ bands to the most complex states of Eurasia), and soon, but still retaining a distinct patricentric pattern(rarely getting even the smallest positive matricentricscores and never even approaching 11.00). Hence, mat-ricentricity/patricentricity scores turn out to be the besttool for the delimitation of megaregions. At the sametime, linearity scores prove to reflect more recent his-torical connections, the results of the functioning of var-ious historical world systems. Hence these scores turnout to be the best tool for the delimitation of regionswithin megaregions.22

22. Incidentally, this helps to explain the peculiar regional positionof Melanesia. On the one hand, its Austronesian majority appearsto share the ancient cultural heritage with the rest of Austronesia(not differing from it on the matricentric dimension) and thus be-longing to the Austronesian megaregion. On the other hand, itsunilinearity scores seem to reflect the more recent historical con-nectedness with the Papuans’ world. Hence, Burton et al.’s (1996)suggestion of including them in the same region as the Papuansappears to have some basis.

Appendix: Linguistic Affiliation Codes

AfrasianA1 AhaggarenA2 TigrinyaA3 AfarA4 AmharaA5 EgyptA6 RwalaA7 Konso

Nostraticno1 Turksno2 Kurdno3 Sindhino4 Pathanno5 Hazarano6 Iraniansno7 Kazakno8 Khalkano9 Manchuno10 Dardno11 Kashmirno12 Chenchuno13 Mariano14 Coorgno15 Teluguno16 Veddano17 Sinhaleseno18 Chakmano19 Todano20 French Canadano21 Irishno22 Saami (Lapps)no23 Czechsno24 Polar Eskimono25 Sivokakmeitno26 Koreansno27 Japaneseno28 Okinawano29 Nunivakno30 Aleutno31 Yukaghirno32 Iglulikno33 Tareumiutno34 Nunamiutno35 Caribou Eskimo

Sino-CaucasianC1 LoloC2 MinchiaC3 ShantungC4 LepchaC5 GaroC6 LhotaC7 LakherC8 KachinC9 AimolC10 SemaC11 ChinC12 BurmeseC13 Kiowa ApacheC14 JicarillaC15 NabesnaC16 CarrierC17 KutchinC19 AlkatchoC20 TolowaC21 HupaC22 Tenino


C23 SarsiC24 ChiricahuaC25 Western ApacheC26 IngalikC27 TanainaC28 HaidaC29 TwanaC30 EyakC31 Tlingit

North PacificNP1 ChukcheeNP2 GilyakNP3 ShawneeNP4 NaskapiNP5 AttawapiskatNP6 ChippewaNP7 Eastern OjibwaNP8 YurokNP9 WiyotNP10 KutenaiNP11 ShushwapNP12 FlatheadNP13 SinkaietkNP14 PieganNP15 Plains CreeNP16 KwakiutlNP17 BellacoolaNP18 NootkaNP19 KlallamNP20 PuyallupNP21 QuinaultNP22 Lillooet

Austronesianan1 Merinaan2 Tanalaan3 Malayan4 Siamesean5 Atayalan6 Ifugaoan7 Subanunan8 Hanunooan9 Amian10 Bununan11 Puyumaan12 Tawi-Tawian13 Yamian14 Ibanan15 Javanesean16 Batakan17 Minangkabauan18 Mentaweiansan19 Macassaresean20 Aloresean21 Beluan22 Tanimbaran23 Palauan24 Chuuk (Truk)an25 Majuroan26 Ifalukan27 Pohnpeian28 Yapan29 Chamorroan30 Ulithian31 Nauruan32 Makinan33 Rotumaan34 Samoaan35 Mangarevaan36 Pukapuka

an37 Tuvaluan38 Toradjaan39 Tokelauan40 Kapingamarangian41 Tongaan42 Mangaiansan43 Maorian44 Marquesasan45 Waropenan46 Ontongan47 Trobriandsan48 Kurtatchian49 Lesuan50 Dobuansan51 Ulawansan52 Manusan53 Choiseulan54 Motaan55 Seniangan56 Lau Fijian57 Vanua Levuan58 Tikopia

References Cited

a b e r l e , d a v i d f . 1961. “Matrilineal descent in cross-culturalperspective,” in Matrilineal kinship, Edited by David M.Schneider and Kathleen Gough, pp. 655-727. Berkeley: Univer-sity of California Press.

a l a e v, l . b . 1981. Selskaja obshchina v Severnoj Indii: Os-novnje etapy evoljutsii. Moskva: Nauka.

a l a e v, l . b . , a n d a . v. k o ro t a y e v. 1999. “Perspektivaprimenenija kross-kulturnyh baz dannyh dlja sravnitelnogoizuchenija tsivilizatsij,” Sravnitel’noje izuchenije tsivilizatsij:Mezhdistsiplinaryj podhod. Edited by K. V. Hvostova. Moskva:Nauka. In press.

a l l e n , j i m . 1996. The pre-Austronesian settlement of islandMelanesia: Implications for Lapita archaeology. Transactions ofthe American Philosophical Society 86:11–27.

a m m a r , h a m e d . 1954. Growing up in an Egyptian village:Silwa, Province of Aswan. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.

a r g u n o v, v. g . 1990. Kamennyj vek Severo-Zapadnoj Jakutii.Novosibirsk: Nauka.

a v k s e n t ’ e v, a . v. 1973. Islam na severnom Kavkaze. Stavro-pol’: Stravropol’skoe Knizhnoe Izdatelstvo.

a y ro u t , h . h . 1954. Fellahi Egipta. Moskva: Izdatel’stvo Ino-strannoj Literatury.

b e r l e v, o . d . 1978. Obshchestvennye otnoshenija v EgipteSrednego Tsarstva: Sotsial’nyj sloj “tsarskih hmww.” Moskva:Nauka.

b e r q u e , j a c q u e s . 1955. Sur la structure sociale de quelquesvillages egyptiens. Annales: Economies, Societes, Civilisations10:199–215.

———. 1957. Histoire sociale d’un village egyptien au 20eme sie-cle. Le Monde d’Outre-mer Passe et Present, Premiere Serie,Etudes 3:35–42.

b l i e v, m . m . 1989. K probleme obshschestvennogo stroja gor-skih (“vol’nyh”) obshchestv Severo-Vostochnogo i Severo-Za-padnogo Kavkaza XVIII—pervoj poloviny XIX veka. IstorijaSSSR, no. 4, pp. 151–68.

b o b ro v n i k o v, v. o . 1998. Sovremennyj mir glazami fellaha(Severnaja Afrika 19–20 vv.). Moskva: Institut VostokovedenijaRAN.

b o s e ru p , e . 1970. Women’s role in economic development.London: Allen and Unwin.

b u r t o n , m i c h a e l l . , c a r m e l l a c . m o o r e , j o h n w.m . w h i t i n g , a n d a . k i m b a l l ro m n e y. 1996. Regionsbased on social structure. current anthropology 37:87–123.

b u r t o n , m i c h a e l l . , a n d k a r l r e i t z . 1981. The plow,


female contribution to agricultural subsistence, and polygyny:A log linear analysis. Behavior Science Research 16:275–305.

b u r t o n , m i c h a e l l . , a n d d o u g l a s r . w h i t e . 1984.Sexual division of labor in agriculture. American Anthropolo-gist 86:568–83.

c h e r n e t s o v, v. n . 1935. Drevnjaja primorskaja kul’tura napoluostrove Jamal. Sovetskaja Etnografica, no. 4–5, pp. 109–33.

d i v a l e , w i l l i a m t u l i o . 1974. Migration, external warfare,and matrilocal residence, Behavior Science Research 9:75–113.

d o l g i h , b . o . 1962. Rodovaja ekzogamija u nganasan i entsev.Sibirskij Etnograficheskij Sbornik 4:197–225.

d o l g o p o l s k y, a . b . 1964. Gipoteza drevnejshego rodstva ja-zykovyh semej Severnoj Evrazii s verojatnostnoj tochki zrenija.Voprosy Jazykoznanija 2:53–63.

———. 1989. “Problems of Nostratic comparative phonology(preliminary report),” in Reconstructing languages and cul-tures. Edited by Vitaly Shevoroshkin, pp. 90–98 Bochum: Univ-ersitatsverlag Brockmeyer.

———. 1995. Sud’ba nostraticheskih glasnyh v indoevropejskomjazyke. Moskovskij Lingvisticheskij Zhurnal 1:14–33.

d o w, m a l c o l m m . , d o u g l a s r . w h i t e , a n d m i c h a e ll . b u r t o n . 1983. Multivariate modeling with interdepend-ent network data. Behavior Science Research 17:216–45.

d u m o n d , d . e . 1977. The Eskimos and Aleuts. London:Thames and Hudson.

d z e n i s k e v i t c h , g . i . 1987. Atapaski Aljaski. Leningrad:Nauka.

e m b e r , c a ro l r . , a n d m e l v i n e m b e r . 1972. The condi-tions favoring multilocal residence. Southwestern Journal ofAnthropology 28:382–400.

———. 1996. 8th edition. Cultural anthropology. Upper SaddleRiver, N.J.: Prentice-Hall.

f a j n b e r g , l . a . 1962. Terminologija rodstva u nganasan kakistoricheskij istochnik. Sibirskij Etnograficheskij Sbornik 4:226–37.

f i h m a n , i . f . 1976. Oksirinh—gorod papirusov. Moskva:Nauka.

f l o o d , j o s e p h i n e . 1987. Archaeology of the Dreamtime:The story of prehistoric Australia and her people. Sydney andLondon: Collins.

f r a n t s o u z o f f , s . a . 1995. The inscriptions from the tem-ples of Dhat Himyam at Raybun. Proceedings of the Seminarfor Arabian Studies 25:15–27.

———. 1997. Regulation of conjugal relations in ancient Raybun.Proceedings of the Seminar for Arabian Studies 27:47–62.

g e m u e v, i . n . 1980. “K istorii sem’ji i semejnoj obrjadnostisel’kupov,” in Etnografija Severnoj Azii. Edited by G. I. Pelihand E. M. Toshchakova, pp. 86–138. Novosibirsk: Nauka.

g o o d y, j a c k . 1976. Production and reproduction: A compara-tive study of the domestic domain. Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press.

———. 1983. The development of the family and marriage inEurope. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

g r i f fi n , j a m e s b . 1970. “Northeast Asian and NorthwesternAmerican ceramics.” Proceedings of the Eighth InternationalCongress of Anthropological and Ethnological Sciences, 1968,vol. 3, pp. 327–30. Tokyo: Science Council of Japan.

g u rv i c h , i . s . , a n d b . o . d o l g i k h . 1970. Obschestven-nyj stroj u narodov Severnoj Sibiri (XVII–nachalo XXv.). Mos-kva: Nauka.

h e l i m s k i , e . a . 1984. “Problema granits nostraticheskoj semjijazykov,” in Lingvisticheskaja reconstruktsija i drevneishajaistorija vostoka. Edited by I. F. Vardul’, V. A. Dybo, P. M. Ko-zhin, A. Ju. Militarev, and S. A. Starostin, vol. 5, pp. 31–48.Moskva: Nauka.

———. 1987. A new approach to Nostratic comparison. Journalof the American Oriental Society 107:97–100.

h o m i c h , l . v. 1966. Nentsy. Moskva and Leningrad: Nauka.i l l i c h - s v i t y c h , v. m . 1971–84. Opyt sravnenija nostrati-

cheskih jazykov: Semito-hamitskij, kartvel’skij, indoevropej-skij, ural’skij, dravidijskij, altajskij. 3 vols. Moskva: Nauka.

———. 1989. “A Nostratic word list: Reconstructions by V. Il-lich-Svitych,” in Explorations in language macrofamilies. Ed-

ited by Vitaly Shevoroshkin, pp. 128–62. Bochum: Universitats-verlag Brockmeyer.

k a l o e v, b . a . 1962. “Aguly,” in Kavkazskij etnograficheskijsbornik 3. Edited by L. I. Lavrov, pp. 69–109. Moskva and Len-ingrad: Izdatel’stvo Akademii Nauk SSSR.

k a r p o v, j u . j u . 1993. “Muzhskije sojuzy v sotsiokulturnojtraditsii gorskih narodov Kavkaza,” in Etnosy i etchnicheskijeprotsessy. Edited by V. A. Popov, pp. 199–212. Moskva: Vos-tochnaja Literatura.

k o ro t a y e v, a . v. 1995. Ancient Yemen: Some general trendsof evolution of the Sabaic language and Sabaean culture. Ox-ford: Oxford University Press.

k o s v e n , m . o . 1963. Semejnaja obshchina i patronimija. Mos-kva: Izdatel’stvo Akademii Nauk SSSR.

k r a d e r , l a w r e n c e . 1954. Buryat religion and society.Southwestern Journal of Anthropology 10:322–51.

k r j u k o v, m . v. 1968. “Tipy rodstva i ih istoricheskoe soot-noshenie,” in Problemy istorii dokapitalisticheskih ob-shchestv. Edited by L. V. Danilova, pp. 352–83. Moska: Nauka.

———. 1972. Sistema rodstva kitajtsev. Moskva: Nauka.———. 1995. “Sinhronno-diahronnyj metod i kontseptsija trans-

formatsionnoj mnogolinejnosti sistem rodstva,” in Algebrarodstva, vol. 1. Edited by V. A. Popov, pp. 111–37. S. Peters-burg: Kunstkamera.

l a b o w i t z , s . 1970. The assignment of numbers to rank ordercategories. American Sociological Review 35:515–24.

l a m a r t i n y e r , p . m . d e . 1912. Puteshestvie v Severnyestrany (1653) (Voyage des pays septentrionaux, Paris 1671).Zapiski Moskovskogo Archeologicheskogo Instituta 15.

l a r n a c h , s . l . , a n d n . w. g . m a c i n t o s h . 1970. Thecraniology of the Aborigines of Queensland. Oceania Mono-graphs 15.

l a u g h l i n , w. s . 1963. The earliest Aleuts. AnthropologicalPapers of the University of Alaska 10(2).

l a v ro v, l . i . 1962. Rutul’tsy v proshlom i nastojashchem.Kavkazskij Etnograficheskij Sbornik 3:109–41.

———. 1981. “Kul’tura i byt narodov Severnogo Kavkaza vXIII–XVI vekah,” in Istorija, etnografija i kultura SevernogoKavkaza. Edited by A. H. Magometov, pp. 3–24. Ordzhoni-kidze: Severno-Osetinskij gosudarstvennyj universitet im. K. L.Hetagurova.

l a v ro v s k i j , p . a . 1867. Korennoe znachenie v nazvanijahrodstva u slavjan. S. Petersburg: Tipografija Akademii Nauk.

l e v i n , m . g . , a n d l . p . p o t a p o v. Editors. 1956. NarodySibiri. Leningrad: Akademija Nauk SSSR.

———. 1964. The peoples of Siberia. Chicago: University of Chi-cago Press.

l i n s h o t e n , y a . g . v a n . 1915. Niderlandskaja ekspeditsijasevernym beregam Rossii v 1594–1595 gg. Zapiski po Gidro-geografii 39(3).

m a n a s t e r r a m e r , a . 1993. On Illich-Svitych’s Nostratictheory. Studies in Language 17:205–49.

m i l i t a r e v, a . j u . , a n d v. a . s h n i r e l ’ m a n . 1984. “Kprobleme lokalizatsii drevnejshih afrazijtsev (opyt lingvo-arheo-logicheskoj rekonstruktsii),” in Lingvisticheskaja reconstruk-tsija i drevneishaja istorija vostaka. Edited by I. F. Vardul’, V.A. Dybo, P. M. Kozhin, A. Ju. Militarev, and S. A. Starostin,vol. 2, pp. 35–53. Moskva: Nauka.

m u r d o c k , g . p . 1949. Social structure. New York:Macmillan.

———. 1967. Ethnographic atlas: A summary. Pittsburgh: Uni-versity of Pittsburgh Press.

———. 1981. Atlas of world cultures. Pittsburgh: University ofPittsburgh Press.

m u r d o c k , g . p . , r . t e x t o r , h . b a r ry i i i , a n d d . r .w h i t e . 1986. Ethnographic atlas. World Cultures 2 (4), firstcomputer variant.

———.1990. Ethnographic atlas. World Cultures 6 (3), secondcomputer variant.

n i k o l a e v, s . l . 1989. “Eyak-Athapaskan–North-Caucasiansound correspondences,” in Reconstructing languages and cul-tures. Edited by Vitaly Shevoroshkin, pp. 63–64. Bochum:Universitatsverlag Brockmeyer.


n i k o l a e v, s . l . , a n d o . a . m u d r a k . 1989. “Gilyak andChukchi-Kamchatkan as Almosan-Keresiouan langiages: Lexi-cal evidence (preliminary report),” in Explorations in languagemacrofamilies. Edited by Vitaly Shevoroshkin, pp. 67–87. Bo-chum: Universitatsverlag Brockmeyer.

n i k o l a e v, s . l . , a n d s . a . s t a ro s t i n . 1994. A NorthCaucasian etymological dictionary. Moscow: AsteriskPublishers.

n o v i t s k i j , g . 1941. (1715) Kratkoje opisanije o narode ostja-tskom. Novosibirsk: Novosibgiz.

o r e l , v. 1995a. Semitokhamiskij, sinokavkazkij, nostratiches-kij. Moskovskij Lingvisticheskij Zhurnal 1:99–116.

———. 1995b. Semitohamitskij i nostraticheskij: Dopolnenija knostraticheskim etimologijam i novye sopostavlenija. Moskov-skij Lingvisticheskij Zhurnal 1:117–28.

o u s l e y, s t e p h e n d . 1995. Relationsips between Eskimos,Amerindians, and Aleuts: Old data, new perspectives. HumanBiology 65:427–58.

p a s t e r n a k , b u r t o n , c a ro l r . e m b e r , a n d m e l v i ne m b e r . 1997. Sex, gender, and kinship: A cross-cultural per-spective. Upper Saddle River, N.J.: Prentice-Hall.

p e i ro s , i . i . 1984. “Drevnjaja Vostochnaja i Jugo-VostochnajaAzija: Sravnitel’no-istoricheskie dannye i ih interpretatsija,” inLingvisticheskaja reconstruktsija i drevneishaja istorija vos-toka. Edited by I. F. Vardul’, V. A. Dybo, P. M. Kozhin, A. Ju.Militarev, and S. A. Starostin, vol. 4, pp. 3–14. Moskva: Nauka.

p e r s h i t s , a . i . , a n d j u . v. b ro m l e j . 1981. “Opyt etno-graficheskogo izuchenija arhaicheskih obshchestvennyh form,”in Sovremennye problemy etnografii: Ocherki teorii i istorii,by Ju. V. Bromlej, pp. 176–201. Moskva: Nauka.

p o p o v, a . a . 1948. Nganasany. Trudy Instituta Etnografii Aka-demii Nauk SSSR, n.s., 3(1):1–122.

ro s h c h i n , m . j u . 1980. “Mesto molodezhi v sisteme patriar-hal’no-rodstvennyh otnoshenij v arabskoj derevne,” in Vseso-juznaja shkola molodyh vostokovedov: Tezisy dokladov soob-shchenij molodyh uchenyh, vol. 2, pt. 1. Edited by S. V.Volkov, pp. 191–95. Moskva: Nauka.

s e m e n o v a , l . a . 1974. Iz istorii fatimidskogo Egipta: Ocher-ki i materialy. Moskva: Nauka.

s e rv i c e , e l m a n r . 1962. Primitive social organization: Anevolutionary perspective. New York: Random House.

s h a m a n o v, i . m . , a n d a . i . m u s u k a e v. 1987. “K voprosuo genezise patronimicheskoj organitzatsii u narodov Se-vernogo Kavkaza (sostojanie problemy),” in Voprosy arheologiii traditsionnoj etnografii Karachaevo-Cherkessii. Edited by A.I. Pershits, pp. 107–14. Cherkessk: Karachaevo-Cherkesskij NIIIstorii, Filologii i Ekonomiki.

s h k u n a e v, s . v. 1989. Obshchina i obshchestvo drevnihkel’tov. Moskva: Nauka.

s i m c h e n k o , j u . b . 1974. “Terminologija rodstva nentsev, en-tsev, nganasan i jukagirov,” in Sotsialnaja organitzatsija ikul’tura narodov Severa. Edited by I. S. Gurvich, pp. 270–91.Moskva: Nauka.

s m o l j a k , a . v. 1966. Ul’chi. Moskva: Nauka.s t a ro s t i n , s . a . 1982. “Prajenisejskaja rekonstruktsija i

vneshnije svjazi jenisejskih jazykov,” in Ketskij sbornik: An-tropologija, etnografija, mifologija, lingvistika. Edited byVjach. Vs. Ivanov, pp. 144–237. Leningrad: Navka.

———. 1984. “Gipoteza o geneticheskih svjazjah sinotibetskih ja-zykov s jeniseiskimi i sinokavkazskimi,” in Lingvisticheskajareconstruktsija i drevneishaja istorija vostoka. Edited by I. F.Vardul’. V. A. Dybo, P. M. Kozhin, A. Ju. Militarev, and S. A.Starostin, vol. 4, pp. 19–38. Moskva: Nauka.

———. 1988. “Indojevropejsko-severnokavkazskije izoglossy,” inDrevnij Vostok: Etnokul’turnyje svjazi. Edited by G. M. Bon-gard-Levin and V. G. Ardzinba, pp. 112–63. Moskow: Nauka.

———. 1989. “Nostratic and Sino-Caucasian,” in Explorations inlanguage macrofamilies. Edited by Vitaly Shevoroshkin, pp.42–66. Bochum: Universitatsverlag Brockmeyer.

s t u c h e v s k i j , i . a . 1982. Zemledel’tsy gosudarstvennogo ho-zjajstva drevnego Egipta epohi Ramessidov. Moskva: Nauka.

t u g o l u k o v, v. a . 1985. Tungusy (evenki i eveny) srednej izapadnoj Sibiri. Moskva: Nauka.

t y l o r , e d w a r d b . 1961 (1889). “On a method of investigat-ing the development of institutions: Applied to laws of mar-riage and descent,” Readings in cross-cultural methodology.Edited by Frank W. Moore, pp. 1–25. New Haven: HRAF Press.

v a s i l ’ e v, v. i . 1987. “Problemy formirovanija fratrialno-rodo-voj organizatsii u narodov severa Zapadnoj i Srednej Sibiri vsvete ih etnogeneza,” in Traditsionnye verovanija i byt naro-dov Sibiri. Edited by I. N. Gemuev and A. M. Sagalaev, pp.133–43. Novosibirsk: Nauka.

v a s i l i e v s k y, r . s . 1975. “Problems of the origin of ancientsea hunters’ cultures in northern Siberia,” in Prehistoric mari-time adaptations of the Circumpolar Zone, pp. 113–21. TheHague and Paris: Mouton.

w h i t e , d o u g l a s r . , m i c h a e l l . b u r t o n , a n d m a l -c o l m m . d o w. 1981. Sexual division of labor in African ag-riculture: A network autocorrelation analysis. American An-thropologist 83:824–49.

w h i t e , j . p . , a n d j . o ’ c o n n e l l . 1982. A prehistory ofAustralia, New Guinea, and Sahul. Sydney: Academic Press.

Regions Based on Social Structure: A Reconsideration (or...

Documents

Transcript of Regions Based on Social Structure: A Reconsideration (or...