2Padam and Minyong kinship systems are very similar with only minor lexical differences, which is why they are considered together here. The kinship terminology structure of other Adi sections, as well as that of the Mising, a non-Adi ethnic group whose members nevertheless speak a language almost identical to ‘Lower Adi’, will be briefly discussed at the end of this paper. As we will see, some remarkable features can be observed in the kinship vocabulary of Padam and Minyong, not least of which is the profusion of terms of address resulting from a form of genealogical ranking which requires a differentiation of close relatives by birth order in everyday speech. The referential vocabulary already offers a rich set of some thirty-odd kin terms, but this number doubles if one takes into account the various specialised terms used in a vocative context to express age hierarchy.

Adi segmentary structure

Padam-Minyong kinship terms

7The nomenclature presented in the list below is basically from Padam. When the two lects are known to differ, Minyong counterparts (either Lower or Upper) are indicated in footnotes or further down in the description. For the sake of clarity, only the terms of reference are listed here. A list of the terms of address and of reference used for each kin relation is provided in the Appendix. Varieties of Padam and Minyong spoken in the hills along the Siang river have lexical tones (Post 2015: 190, 203) but, generally speaking, ‘Lower Adi’ as spoken around Pasighat tends not to have any. As I am not qualified to address this language’s complex tone system, no tone notations are given here. However, vowel length has been taken into account. Long or doubled vowels are simply represented by doubling the letter. Abbreviations used for kin type primitives are as follows: father [F], mother [M], brother [B], sister [Z], child [C], son [S], daughter [D], grandchild [GC], husband [H], wife [W], spouse [Sp], elder [e], younger [y].

Table 1: Padam Adi kin terms

1. buku [buku]: FFF, FMF, MFF, MMF

2. neku [nǝku]: FFM, FMM, MFM, MMM

3. abu-bukua [abu-buku]: FF, MF

4. ane-neku [anǝ-nǝku]: FM, MM

5. abu [abu]: F

6. ane [anǝ]: M

7. apang [apaŋ]: FB

8. nyaanyi [ɲaaɲi]: FZ

9. aki/kiki [akɨ/kɨkɨ]: MB, MBS, MBSS, FMB, FMBS, FMBSS, MMB, MMBS, MMBSS

10. amo [amo]: MZ, MBD, MBSD, FMZ, FMBD, FMBSD, MMZ, MMBD, MMBSD

11. aabing [a:bɨŋ]: eB, e[FBS]

12. aami/miimi [a:mi/mi:mi]: eZ, e[FBD]

13. biro [bɨro]: B (generic), yB*, y[FBS]*, y[MZS]*, FFZSS, MFBDS

14. birme [bɨrmǝ]: Z (generic), yZ*, y[FBD]*, y[MZD]*, MFBDD

15. anyingb [aɲiŋ]: MZSc, MZDd

16. oo [o:]: S, BS, ZS, FZS

17. ome [omǝ]: D, BD, ZD, FZD

18. oten [otǝn]: GC

19. milo [milo]: H

20. meeng [mǝ:ŋ]: W

21. ato [ato]: WF, WM, HFe, HMf

22. ayo [ajo]: WM

23. yaayo [ja:jo]: MBW, MBSW, FMBW, FMBSW, FMBSSW, MMBW, MMBSW, MMBSSW

24. taaram [ta:ram]: FZH, MZH

25. yigo [yigo]: WB, HB

26. yingne [yiŋne]: WZ, HeZg, HyZh

27. nyameng [ɲamǝŋ]: SW, BSW, BW, FBSW, FZSW

28. magbo [magbo]: DH, ZH, FZH, MZH, FBDH, FZDH, MBDH, MZDH, BDH, ZDH.

29. belbo [bǝlbo]: WZH**

30. belne [bǝlnǝ]: HBW

31. kimbo [kimbo]: CSpF

32. kinne [kinnǝ]: CSpM

a. ˀátò for grandfather in Upper Minyong (Post 2015: 203). b. ˀáɲìŋ for MZD in Upper Minyong (Post 2015: 203). c. Or anyinge (/aɲiŋǝ/). d. Followed by -birme (/bɨrmǝ/). e. Followed by -abu (/abu/). f. Followed by -ane (/anǝ/). g. In direct address, usually nyaanyi botte to follow a female ego’s children. h. In direct address, usually nyaanyi ame to follow a female ego’s children.

* followed by -aniyang [-anɨjaŋ].

** belbiyang [belbɨjaŋ] if older than ego, belniyang [belnɨjaŋ] if younger.

Description

8The description begins with consanguineal relations from ascending to descending generations and then proceeds to affines.

Consanguineal relations

Grandparents, great-grandparents

Parents

10In Padam and Minyong, the words abu (‘father’) and ane (‘mother’) are used exclusively to refer to the biological or socially recognised father and mother, ie they are not extended to any collateral kin. Ane is a purely referential term, whereas abu can also be used as a term of address, along with yaayi. Common terms for addressing one’s mother are ayi and neyi in Padam.

Uncles and aunts

Siblings

12Biro and birme are generic terms for brother and sister respectively. Siblings address each other according to their relative age and use the same terms for both male and female speakers. The term aabing [a:bɨŋ] is employed by younger siblings to address and to refer to an elder brother. Biibing [bɨɨbɨŋ] is also commonly used to call one’s elder brother. More specific terms uttered in a vocative context can further indicate birth order such as bing abiyang (eldest), bing bodong (middle), bing aniyang or bing aniyalum (youngest). Similarly, aami is used by younger siblings to address and to refer to an elder sister, while miim(i) is of common usage in address. The latter term can be further broken down into miim botte, miim bodong, miim andeng and miim aniyang from eldest to youngest. Terms of reference for younger siblings are formed by adding aniyang (‘younger’) to the generic term, biro aniyang for a younger brother and birme aniyang for a younger sister. In practice, the way siblings address each other may vary from family to family.

Cousins

13Cousins are distinct from siblings and are also all differentiated from one another. Paternal parallel cousins are treated terminologically as siblings; they also address and refer to one another by the same terms as siblings. Anying is the term of reference for maternal parallel cousins, which covers MZS (anyinge) and MZD (anying birme). In direct address, a male or female speaker calls his/her mother’s sister’s sons by using appropriate kin terms only if they are older than him or her, otherwise by their names. Various derived terms are employed in vocative contexts to express birth order, eg miim botte, miim bodong, miim andeng, miim aniyang for FBD, or aanyi biibing and aanyi miim(i) for MZS and MZD respectively, although usage may vary from one family to another.

14No specific term exists for cross cousins. Maternal male cross cousins are equated with maternal uncles (aki) and addressed in a similar way by distinguishing them according to birth order (serially teete, yooyong, yiyi), at least if they are older than the speaker. Kiki and aki de are possible alternatives if the speaker and the addressee are of approximately similar age and enjoy a relationship of friendship. If younger, teete ngaanga, yooyong ngaanga, yiyi ngaanga are more appropriate, but even so they should not be called by name. A single son is usually addressed as yeyeng or yiyi in Minyong. Maternal male cross cousins can be referred to simply as aki or aki oo (‘maternal uncle-son’), or aki ngaanga (‘younger/junior maternal uncle’). In a similar way, maternal female cross cousins are equated to maternal aunt (amo) and addressed by using appropriate kin terms according to birth order: teete (or mote, /motǝ/), yooyong (or moyong), ayi (or moyi).

15Paternal male cross cousins are equated with children and referred to simply as ‘sons’ (oo, for FZS) and ‘daughters’ (ome, for FZD). Oo (or o-de) and ome are also appropriate terms of address but only if the paternal cross cousins are older than ego. Alternatively, they can be called oo-biibing and oo-meme (lit ‘son-elder brother’ and ‘son-elder sister’), which can be contracted to biibing and miimi/meme, though the latter are less common than oo and ome and may not be regarded as appropriate by some. Another compound word, aanying ngaanga, applies to a younger male or female cousin.

Children, siblings’ children

16Oo is the term for son, but also by extension for child, and ome is the term for daughter. Parents usually call their children by their personal names or by nicknames. Firstborn sons and daughters are referred to respectively as oo obing and ome obing. Irrespective of the speaker’s sex, all siblings’ children are equated to children and referred to as oo/ome. They are addressed by their names or nicknames, as are own children.

Cousins’ children

17Children of paternal parallel and cross cousins (FBSC, FBDC, FZSC, FZDC) are equated to children (oo/ome) and addressed by name only. MBSS, as his father, is referred to as aki or kiki (‘maternal uncle’) while MBSD, as her mother, is referred to as amo (‘maternal aunt’). Appropriate terms of address for them are respectively teete (ngaanga), yooyong (ngaanga), yiyi (ngaanga) and teete (or mote), yooyong (or moyong), ayi (or moyi), according to birth order. Similarly, MBDS, as his mother, is referred to as aanying biro. In direct address he may be called nyiinying biibing if he is older than the speaker and nyiining if he is of the same age group.

Second and third descending generations

18The term of reference for a grandchild is oten. To specify gender, one has to add oo for a grandson and ome for a granddaughter. To our knowledge, there is no separate kin term for great-grandchildren. Both grandchildren and great-grandchildren are called by their names or by nicknames.

Affinal relations

Spouses

19Husband and wife commonly call each other using nicknames or they resort to teknonymy by using a child as a linking relative. A woman can also simply call her husband yayi or abu (‘father’), whereas he can reciprocate by calling her ayi or ane (‘mother’). The Padam words for ‘husband’ and ‘wife’ are milo and meeng respectively. The corresponding terms of reference in Minyong are milo or mijing (‘husband’) and myeng or mime (‘wife’).

Parents-in-law

20The Padam and Minyong terms for father-in-law and mother-in-law are ato (SpF) and ayo (SpM). However, in a vocative context, a Padam woman would call her husband’s father ato-abu (lit ‘father-in-law-father’) and her husband’s mother ato-ane (‘father-in-law-mother’), or simply abu and ane (ie she addresses parents-in-law in the same way as her husband addresses them).

Spouses of uncles and aunts

Siblings’ spouses

22A male or female ego addresses the wife of an elder brother as mamo and the wife of a younger brother as nyameng (/ɲamǝŋ/), though both are referred to as nyameng (‘daughter-in-law’). A sister’s husband is addressed and referred to as magbo by both sexes, irrespective of the brother’s or his wife’s relative age to ego. But the husband of an elder sister is more appropriately called magbo aabing (aabing, ‘elder brother’) or magbo yaayi. In Minyong, babi is similarly used to address one’s elder sister’s husband (real or classificatory) in a respectful manner.

Spouses’ siblings

23All spouse’s brothers fall into the category yigo, and all spouse’s sisters into the category yingne. But the terms of address are not exactly the same for a male and a female speaker. A married man addresses all his wife’s siblings by the same terms she uses. A married woman addresses her husband’s sisters by the same terms her husband uses, but not his brothers whom she usually calls ‘paternal uncle’ (paate, paayong, paatum, paayi according to birth order), as her children would.

Cousins’ spouses

24All female cousins’ husbands (FBDH, FZDH, MBDH, MZDH) fall into the category magbo, ‘son-in-law’, whereas FBSW, FZSW and MZSW fall into the category nyameng, ‘daughter-in-law’. Only the wife of the mother’s brother’s daughter is treated separately by being classed under the same kinship label as the mother’s brother’s wife, yaayo. Magbo, nyameng and yaayo are also used as a term of address, especially if the addressee is older than the speaker. Wives of paternal cousins (FBSW, FZSW) older than ego are called mamo, (‘elder brother’s wife’), whereas wives of maternal cousins (MBSW, MZSW) are simply addressed as nyameng (‘daughter-in-law’) irrespective of their relative age to ego.

Children’s spouses

25Magbo and nyameng are generic terms for ‘son-in-law’ and ‘daughter-in-law’ respectively. Though both can be used as terms of reference and of address, in everyday speech one may call one’s sons- and daughters-in-law simply by their names. Both terms cover a wide range of relatives and even non-kin (see below).

Spouse’s siblings’ spouses

26Adi has two co-sibling-in-law self-reciprocal terms of reference. One is belbo, used by men whose wives are sisters. The other is belne, used by women whose husbands are brothers. Both can be broken down in address according to age hierarchy. A man may address his WZH as belbiyang (a contraction of belbo and abiyang, ‘eldest’) if he is older than him or belniyang (a contraction of belbo and aniyang, ‘youngest’) if he is younger.

Children’s spouse’s parents

27Adi also has two specific terms of reference for co-parents-in-law, ie people whose children marry each other, kimbo (or kumbo, CSpF) and kinne (CSpM).

Extension of kin terms

28Many of the core kinship terms stand for both real and classificatory kin:

• Beyond the maternal uncle proper and male members of his patriline (MBS, MBSS), the term aki applies to the maternal uncles of an individual’s parents (FMB, MMB), grandparents (FFMB, FMMB, MFMB, MMMB) and their agnatic offspring (FMBS, FMBSS, MMBS, MMBSS, MMMBS etc). It may be further extended to all male members of the two corresponding opin. All women married to a person whom an individual calls aki/kaki fall into the yaayo category.
• Similarly, the amo category covers all daughters of men whom an ego calls aki/kaki and, in a broader sense, it encompasses all women from the mother’s, grandmother’s and great-grandmother’s opin.
• Any male person whom a man’s wife would call ‘brother’ is his yigo, ‘brother-in-law’, as is any female person whom a woman’s husband regards as a real or classificatory brother.
• Any male person who marries a real or classificatory daughter, niece, sister, first cousin or aunt (paternal and maternal) is regarded as magbo. By extension, this category may also cover all non-kin males who are potential marriage partners for women. In a vocational context, a distinction is drawn in Padam between close and not so close affinal kin by means of the pair magbo/taaram: Magbo primarily applies to the real husbands of aunts, sisters and daughters, while taaram is a term of respect for more distant kin. But one may also choose to address one’s cousin or even friend as magbo if one wishes to express and underline their close relationship.
• Similarly, the term nyameng may be applied to all in-married women of a male individual’s opin (own, brothers’, sons’, paternal real or classificatory cousins’ wives).

Analysis

Kin type

30The classifications of this type of system, like the Adi system, appear to be complicated at first glance. Yet they are simple to native speakers who follow a few basic rules. Two brothers’ children call each other ‘brothers’ and ‘sisters’, but a brother’s and his sister’s children call each other differently. A brother’s son and daughter automatically become maternal uncle and aunt for his sister’s children. Thus, though they are actually first cousins, they are ‘nephew’ and ‘niece’ for the brother’s children. This principle can be extended to encompass larger units. For example, for a female born Ering but married to a man of the Bamin opin, all Ering individuals, male and female, automatically become her children’s uncles and aunts, whereas every child born of a Bamin girl automatically becomes her children’s niece/nephew.

Marriage system

32As women retain their father’s name and opin affiliation upon marriage, it is easy in practice for individuals to determine who may or may not marry. For example, a male whose mother is Yirang, whose maternal grandmother is Perme and whose maternal great-grandmother is Saring will regard all members of Yirang, Perme and Saring sections as his aki and amo, according to their sex, regardless of age or generation. He will also regard all members of his paternal grandmother’s opin (eg Tayeng) as his aki/amo and will therefore avoid marrying a girl belonging to any of these four sections. This relation is inherited so his children will consider all members of Yirang, Perme, Saring and Tayeng opin as maternal affines. This system provides the possibility of repeating past alliances once a required number of generations has elapsed but suffices to lead to a general dispersal of alliances at each generation. Note that there is close congruence between the terminology and the ban on the repetition of marriage between certain lines of descent, since the term aki (MB), as seen above, covers members of those patrilines with whom marriage is forbidden. Padam and Minyong terminologies thus contain indirect indications of marriage regulations.

33One may conjecture that the main purpose of dispersed affinal alliance is to use marital ties to create as many allies as possible. It makes sense in Adi society because individuals can traditionally rely on the support of their maternal relatives. Wife-giver groups as a whole are viewed as being fundamentally protective, as being under the obligation to render assistance in emergencies. Those who are closely related are expected to be more dependable allies. Being the closest relative on the maternal side, the mother’s brother is a particularly respected figure among the Adi and acts as guardian for his sisters’ children, even allegedly ensuring their physical safety by warding off evil spirits.

34Once five generations have elapsed, however, the situation changes and distant cross cousins become preferential mates according to Borang (2015: 81). Given that the Adi only allow matrilateral, not patrilateral, cross-cousin marriage, a man is encouraged to marry a female descendant of one of his agnatic ascendants’ aki/kaki (maternal uncle). The system thus appears to combine an Omaha-type dispersal with the feature of replication after a lapse of some generations.

35Another salient feature of all Adi terminologies is the fairly clear-cut distinction between consanguineal and affinal categories. As a matter of fact, the two sets never overlap. Fourteen elementary terms of reference are used by Padam and Minyong Adi to denote ties of affinity (nos 19–32), none of which include consanguineal relations. Among them, two transgenerational categories – magbo and nyameng – show the distinction between wife-givers and wife-takers. Magbo basically denotes wife-takers (ie men who marry women of a man’s agnatic group (opin or pinmik) such as FZH, ZH, DH, FBDH, BDH), whereas nyameng indirectly refers to wife-givers by primarily denoting all women who marry male members of a male ego’s patriline (BW, FBSW, FZSW and SW). By extension, the latter category encompasses all in-married women of a male individual’s opin.

Birth order

37Of particular interest is the Adi intricate system of ranking consanguineal kin according to their order of birth, which also exists in some neighbouring languages, but takes a rather complex, albeit irregular form in Padam and Minyong. Kinship terms expressing an age-related hierarchy are only used in a vocative context. They can be formed in a variety of ways:

• by compounding certain kin roots, such as paa- (paternal uncle), mo- (maternal aunt), and other roots expressing sequential order such as te- (first, eldest) yong- (second/middle, out of three), tum- (third, out of four), yi- (last, youngest);
• by simply repeating the ordinal root (eg teete, yooyong, yiyi);
• by prefixing the ordinal root with a- (eg ate, ayong, ayi);
• by combining a double ordinal root with a kin term (eg teete nane for the eldest paternal aunt);
• by adding abiyang or botte (eldest), raadang, bodong or andeng (middle), aniyang (youngest) to the kin term, the kin root or the ordinal root, eg nyaani botte for the eldest paternal aunt, bing bodong for the second/middle brother, ayi aniyang for the youngest maternal aunt.

38Although several possibilities are offered for each kin relation to which the age hierarchy applies, none includes them all, which confers on the system an irregular quality (see below). This is in line with what Post (2017: 50) noted for Tangam Adi. The Padam-Minyong system also presents several inconsistencies insofar as kin ordinals and the way they are formed vary to some extent from one relation to another. Most terms denoting the eldest position or order between siblings are formed by using or combining the morpheme te- meaning ‘big’ or ‘first’ in Padam, while most of the terms denoting the youngest position or order are formed by using -yi meaning ‘last’ or ‘youngest’. Yong- or dong- are used as suffixes attached to root words to indicate the second rank, and -tum to indicate the third rank.

39Below are the main birth-order terms of address used by Padam and Minyong speakers. Those marked with an asterisk (*) are specifically Minyong.

Table 2. Birth order sequence at G+1

	apaŋ (FB)	(ɲ)a:ɲii (FZ)	aki (MB)	amo (MZ)
eldest	pa:tǝ	a:ɲi abijaŋ/ ɲa:ɲi bottǝ/ tǝǝtǝ anǝ/tǝǝtǝ nanǝ	tǝǝtǝ	motǝ/atǝ/tǝǝtǝ
second/middle	pa:joŋ	jojoŋ nanǝ	jojoŋ/*joŋ	mojoŋ/ajoŋ/jojoŋ
third/middle	pa:tum	a:ɲi ra:daŋ	*jejeŋ	motum
youngest 1st youngest	pa:ji	(ɲ)a:ɲi anijaŋ/aji nanǝ	jiji ji abijaŋ	aji/aji nanǝ/moi tutuŋ
2nd youngest			ji bodoŋ	aji bodoŋ
3rd youngest			ji anijaŋ	aji anijaŋ

Table 3. Birth order sequence at G0

	a:bɨŋ (B, FBS)	a:mi (Z, FBD)	aki (‑o/‑ŋa:ŋa) (MBS)	amo (-ome) (MBD)
eldest	bɨŋ abijaŋ/ tǝǝtǝ	mi:m bottǝ/ mi:m tǝǝtǝ	tǝǝtǝ (‑ŋa:ŋaa)	tǝǝtǝ/motǝ
second	bɨŋ bodoŋ/ jojoŋ	mi:mǝ bodoŋ	jojong (‑ŋa:ŋa)	jojoŋ/mojoŋ
third/middle	bɨŋ andeŋ	mi:m andeŋ
youngest	bɨŋ anijaŋ/ bɨŋ anijalu/ jiji	mi:m anijaŋ	jiji (‑ŋa:ŋa)	aji/moi
a. The suffix -ngaanga (‘younger’) may be added according to the speaker’s and referent’s relative ages.

40In both dialects, age hierarchy applies primarily to consanguineals in the three medial generations: children, siblings, uncles and aunts, as well as paternal parallel cousins and maternal cross cousins, all classified and ordered in relation to one another according to their position. It even extends to more distant consanguineals (eg FFZC) provided that the addressee’s birth rank is known to the speaker. Another noticeable feature is that the principle of ranking by birth order tends to blur the distinctions based on seniority. A woman, for example, may call her husband’s brother paayi, implying that he is the last-born of a group of male siblings, regardless of the husband’s relative age to her. Similarly, calling someone paatum, ‘third/middle father’s brother’, does not indicate whether the uncle or aunt is older or younger than the parent of reference. Birth order simply defines the seniority of the kinship position within one terminological class. Contrary to terms denoting relative age, those denoting birth order are not relative ego-centred terms indicating a relationship between two or more persons, but are absolute and permanent.

41It is significant that age hierarchy is only expressed through terms of address, as is the fact that birth order is also used primarily for addressing someone older than the speaker. In this regard, it is interesting to note that while all collaterals in the parental generation are differentiated according to age hierarchy, this is not the case in ego’s generation. Siblings and parallel cousins are ranked, but not paternal cross cousins (FZC). This is because, due to the Omaha terminology’s skewing characteristic, the children of one’s paternal aunt are equated to children and therefore regarded structurally as juniors. This clearly indicates that an age hierarchy is an element of a social verticality. Being used, for the most part, for relatives older than ego, terms expressing birth order are also honorific, ie linguistic markers that signal respect and, as such, reflect social asymmetries. Their relative extension beyond the range of family and genealogically close kin leads individuals to recognise their rank and responsibilities in relation to one another no matter how distantly related.

Discussion

42While the tribal societies of Arunachal Pradesh are highly diverse, there has been relatively little anthropological work specifically devoted to their kinship systems over the past four decades and a full investigation of the kin terminologies of the many languages spoken in this part of the Himalayas has yet to be conducted. That being said, it might be interesting to evaluate how the most salient features of the Padam-Minyong system fit into broader patterns found throughout Northeast India and adjoining areas of northern Myanmar or southwest China, about which we have substantial information.

Birth order

Omaha type

44Many kinship nomenclatures of India’s northeast tribals have been identified as ‘Omaha’ or ‘Omahan’ insofar as they abide by a small set of formal rules, the most salient of which being the skewing rule as defined by Lounsbury (1964b). Still, very few societies of this region fit into the Lévi-Straussian definition of Omaha which takes into consideration both terminology and marriage patterns. For Lévi-Strauss (1965), Omaha systems are not merely characterised by skewed terminologies but also by matrimonial rules based on proscriptions, not prescriptions, coupled with various strategies of dispersed alliances by means of a series of lineal prohibitions. According to the current state of our knowledge, in India’s northeast region only the southern Adi (including Padam and Minyong sections) and their western neighbours the Apatani conform to Lévi-Strauss’s Omaha type (Bouchery 2016). Both societies not only share similar terminological structures based on multiple cross-generational equations, but also similar rules that forbid marriage with close cousins and proscribe structurally identical alliances for same-sex kin, while allowing and sometimes encouraging the renewal of previously contracted alliances after four or five generations. By contrast, most of the other systems of this region that have been labelled ‘Omaha’ in anthropological literature (Kachin, various Naga and Kuki-Chin groups) exhibit only a minimal set of Omaha-type terminological equivalences such as MB = MBS and FZS = ZS, coupled with an asymmetric alliance pattern based on prescriptive or preferential rules, usually enjoining a man to marry one of his real or classificatory maternal cross cousins. Within the Tani linguistic cluster, the data collected to date is far from comprehensive; still there is a discernable Omahan pattern in the lects spoken in Arunachal Pradesh insofar as maternal cross cousins tend to be ‘raised’ a generation and equated to ego’s mother’s brother and sister, while those on the paternal side tend to be skewed downwards a generation and equated to ego’s children, sister’s children or grandchildren. This is also the case in Milang which is not a Tani language but has been influenced by Padam, and whose speakers regard themselves ethnically as Adi.

Table 4. Omaha-type equations within Tani

	Maternal cross cousins	Paternal cross cousins
Nyishi	MBS = MB = WB (kei); MBD = MZ = WZ (meyi)	FZC = CC (doon ko)
Bangni	MBD = MZ(mei)	FZD = DD (mew)
Tagin	MBS = MB (akhi); MBD = MZ (amu/muyi/mei)	FZD = ZD (dungne kho)
Bokar	MBS = MB (aki); MBD = MZ (amo)	FZD = ZD = D (hime)
Bori	MBS = MB (aki); MBD = MZ (amo)	unknown
Pailibo	MBS = MB (akyi)	unknown
Galo	MBS = MB (aki)	FZS = ZS (yao); FZD = ZD (mvo)
Tangam	MBS = MB (aki)	unknown
Milang	MBS = MB (tuutuŋ); MBD = MZ (amu)	FZD = eZD = eZDD (ooru)

Sources: Nyishi: own data; Bangni: Duncan 1970; Tagin: own data; Bokar: own data; Bori: Kumar 1979b; Pailibo: Kumar 1979a; Galo: Post 2007, own data; Tangam: Post 2017; Milang: Modi 2017.

45Several authors report the possibility of, and in some cases even a preference for, matrilateral first cousin marriages (a male marrying his MBD or sometimes MZD) among Bokar, Nyishi, Bangni, Pailibo, Ramo and Tagin (Banerjee 1999: 69, 71; Dhasmana 1979: 96; Duncan 1970; Kumar 1979a: 223, 225; Riddi 2006: 66; Shukla 1965: 133). Although some of this data is not necessarily reliable and further research is needed, it contrasts singularly with the strong disapproval of all first-cousin unions among Apatani and Padam-Minyong Adi and suggests that there is no such thing as a ‘pan-Tani’ marriage pattern but rather differences from one group to another that must be studied on a case-by-case basis.

46From a terminological perspective, even though the kinship systems of northern Adi sections are still not fully described, there is evidence to suggest that most if not all nomenclatures of ethnically Adi subgroups (one may also add Galo) are structured along a common set of general principles:

• an Omaha-type terminology, minimally defined by a pair of typical equations (MB = MBS; FZC = C, ZC or GC);
• a distinction between wife-givers and wife-takers reflected in the terminology by the presence of two transgenerational categories, similar to the magbo/nyameng opposition in Padam-Minyong;
• a strict demarcation between terms for consanguineal relatives and terms for affinal relatives, with no overlapping. Terms of affinity such as yigo, yingne, magbo, nyameng, belbo, belne, kimbo, kinne (or very close phonetic variants) appear to be particularly stable and basically denote the same sets of relatives in all groups (with the possible exception of Milang).

47The main difference between northern and southern Adi terminologies lies in the classification of MZD, which is lumped together with the maternal aunt (amo) in some lects such as Pailibo and Bori, whereas it makes up a separate category in Lower Adi.

Lower Adi and Mising: Omaha vs Dravidian

48If we now look beyond the ethnically defined category ‘Adi’ and consider more broadly the Tani language cluster, the closest relatives of the Padam, Minyong Pansi and Pangging Adi are the Mising of upper Assam, who also constitute the largest population of Tani language speakers. Like the Adi, the Mising are divided into a number of regional subgroups such as Oying, Shayang, Dambok, Delo and Pagro, the latter being by far the most numerous. It is this main section that we will focus on since we were able to gather kinship terminological data. In Assam, the Pagro Mising mainly inhabit Lakhimpur, Sibsagar, Dhimaji and Majuli districts along the banks of the Brahmaputra River.

Table 3: the dichotomous nature of Pagro Mising kin terminology

Gen level		Parallel		Cross
		male	female	male	female
G+2		ato/taato (GF)		ayo/yaayo (GM)
G+1	>   <	(b)abatta (FeB, MeZH) baboi/abu-oi (FyB, MyZH)	aane-bata (MeZ, FeBW) aane-oi (MyZ, FyBW)	akiu/kakv (MB, FZH, SpF)	nyanyi (FZ, MBW, SpM)
G0	>     <	abin biro (eB, e[FBS], e[MZS]) amen biro (yB, y[FBS], y[MZS])	abin birme (eZ, e[FBD], e[MZS]) amen birme (yZ, y[FBD], y[MZS])	magbo (e[FZS], e[MBS], eZH, SpeB) yigo (y[FZS], y[MBS], yZH, SpyB)	amo/maamo (e[FZD], e[MBD], eBW, SpeZ) yigne (y[FZD], y[MBD], yBW, SpyZ)
G+1		aao (S, ♂BS, ♀ZS)	oome (D, ♂BD, ♀ZD)	eo/io (♂ZS, ♀BS)	Eme (♂ZD, ♀BD)
G+2		tsho/nati (GS)		tshomo/nati (GD)

Note: vowel length is not taken into account.

50Pagro Mising terminology shows a clear-cut division into parallel/cross categories in the three medial generations and the merging of affines with consanguines in the cross category. Such a dichotomy between parallel and cross kin, which has the effect of neutralising the distinction between paternal and maternal kin, is a characteristic feature of Dravidian systems. It entails typical arrangements in different generations:

• At G⁰, parallel cousins are equated with siblings, whereas cross cousins are equated with in-laws of ego’s generation.
• At G⁺¹, the mother’s brother and the father-in-law are grouped together in the same category (akiu/kakv), just as the father’s sister and the mother-in-law (nyanyi) are.
• At G^-1, for each sex, the children of one’s same-sex sibling’s children are equated terminologically to one’s own children, whereas the children of one’s other-sex sibling’s children are distinguished by a specific term (C = ♂BC = ♀ZC) ≠ (♂ZC = ♀BC).

54Given the fact that Padam Adi and Mising languages are quite close, or may even be regarded as two varieties of the same language, how do we reconcile the difference between the kin terminology of the former, of Omaha type with marked skewing and no overlapping between affinal and consanguineal categories, and that of the latter which is Dravidian in every sense of the word and merges affinal relatives with consanguineals? The difference mainly lies in the presence of cross-cousin marriage among Pagro Mising, which is absent among Padam-Minyong Adi. The Pagro Mising Dravidian terminology is congruent with their marriage system, insofar as the distinction between cross and parallel kin at G0 also marks the boundary between marriageability and non-marriageability.

55From a historical perspective, we know that the formation of present-day ethnic Mising is the result of a progressive southward migration of Siang area eastern Tani-speaking groups (mostly ancestors of present-day Adi) along the course of the Brahmaputra River. Virtually all authors, as well as the two groups’ oral traditions, agree on this point. Since Adi terminological systems are fairly uniform in their structure, it is relatively safe to assume that the Pagro kin classification evolved from this general model, ie a terminological system in which a basic distinction was made between wife-givers and wife-takers, and affinal relations constituted a separate subset. It should also be noted that no other Tani language, either western or eastern, exhibits a terminological structure similar to that of Pagro Mising. Thus, if the Mising relationship terminology derives from a more stable and widespread ‘Adi’ pattern, how has it been transformed?

56First, certain specific terms of affinity attested to in several Adi nomenclatures such as nane or maam(i) (FBW), yaayo (MBW) or yayi (MZH), are no longer present in Mising. This is not surprising because, in an exogamous moiety organisation, relatives of the parental generation tend to be split between consanguines and affines according to their respective moieties, hence the equivalences FBW = MZ and MBW = FZ: the distinction between same-sex parents’ siblings (F ≠ FB; M ≠ MZ) becomes blurred and fades, leading to the transformation of a Bifurcate Collateral system into a Bifurcate Merging system. Likewise, Lower Adi terms of reference for parents-in-law, ato and ayo, are absent in Mising, parents-in-law being lumped together with ‘maternal uncles’ (akiu/kakv) and ‘paternal aunts’ (nyanyi). This too is expected in an exogamous moiety system where all mother’s classificatory brothers are simultaneously one’s spouse’s classificatory parents. It is also to be noted that the ‘son-in-law’ category has a much more limited extension than the Adi nyameng category, it being reduced to the focal term and no longer containing affinal relatives of one’s patriline.

57Conversely, at G0 some purely affinal categories in Adi encompass a wider range of relatives in Mising due to the fact that cross cousins have been added, namely:

• magbo: eZH, WeB, HeB, e[MBS], e[FZS]
• yigo: yZH, WyB, HyB, y[MBS], y[FZS]
• mamo/maamo: eBW, WeZ, HeZ, e[MBD], e[FZD]
• yigne: yBW, WyZ, HyZ, y[MBD], y[FZD]

58This merging of affinal and consanguineal relations is consistent from a matrimonial point of view, as in the context of an organisation into exogamous moieties where cross cousins necessarily belong to the marriageable category. The following must be emphasised: it is consanguineals who are incorporated into pre-existing affinal categories, not affinal relatives who are lumped together with consanguineals. Indeed, an examination of all Adi kinship lexicons shows that everywhere magbo, nyameng, yigo and yigne are terms of affinity and exclusively so. They have simply been extended in Mising to include consanguineals of ego’s generations who belong to the opposite moiety as they are also classificatory brothers- and sisters-in-law. This is in line with Dumont’s approach to Dravidian systems in which cross cousins are considered primarily as affines: it would therefore be inaccurate to say that the Mising nomenclature hardly contains affinal categories.

59Also worth noting is that all transgenerational terms have disappeared in Mising. The maternal uncle’s son is no longer treated terminologically as his father but as a ‘brother-in-law’, which he actually is in a system of exogamous moieties associated with the rule of bilateral marriage. Similarly, the maternal aunt’s daughter is no longer a ‘mother’ but a ‘sister’, the mother’s sister having necessarily married a man belonging to ego’s moiety and therefore her daughter being de facto ego’s classificatory sister.

60The comparison between Padam-Minyong Adi and Pagro Mising gives us a glimpse of one of the processes by which an asymmetrical kinship system may evolve into a symmetrical system based on bilateral marriage. This has important theoretical implications since it can call into question one of the most basic and recurrent neo-evolutionist paradigms that have flourished over the past two or three decades in opposition to the more conventional structural approach. The latter readily supports the idea that the particular arrangement of the categories of relatives at least partially reflects matrimonial practice, and that any change in it is likely to lead to changes in the way of classifying kin categories through a process of reciprocal adjustments. Universal theories of kinship evolution consider, on the contrary, that terminological systems are independent of social systems. They postulate the existence of a logic inherent to the kinship system itself that makes its transformations not only directional but also irreversible. In particular they claim – and too often take for granted – that all kinship terminologies evolve from a symmetric, Dravidian-like form based on a rule of bilateral cross-cousin marriage. Most importantly, they consider that a transformation in the reverse direction (ie towards Dravidian or Kariera models) is impossible or at least highly unlikely (Allen 1986, 1989, 1998, 2008; Godelier 1998, 2004; Kronenfeld 1989; Kryukov 1998; Needham 1967; Parkin 2012; Trautmann 1981, 2012). Prominent and much discussed among those theories is Allen’s tetradic model (1986), which postulates that all kinship terminologies have evolved via the progressive breaking of certain primordial equations such as alternate generation equivalences or equations pertaining to prescriptive marriage regulations as seen in Dravidian terminologies. According to Allen, the trend regarding the evolution or historical transformation of kinship terminologies is always to create more specific, more descriptive categories and, once primordial equations have been broken, they cannot be restored.

61Allen’s tetradic theory grew out of analyses of Tibeto-Burman kinship terminologies, so one may assume that it is particularly suited to explain the evolution of terminologies within this linguistic family. In a previous paper (Bouchery and Longmailai 2018: 244–245) I showed that the Bodo-Garo terminological corpus does not fit in well with this evolutionary model and even contradicts it. The same can be said regarding eastern Tani. Not only does the Mising kin terminology suggest the possibility of an evolution from the Omaha-type to the Dravidian-type, but it also contradicts one of the main arguments on which Allen’s theory is based, namely the impossibility that the introduction of the prescriptive rule of bilateral cousin marriage alone generates the characteristic equations of the Dravidian model. In the tetradic model, a Dravidian-type symmetrical prescriptive terminology is first transformed into an asymmetrical prescriptive terminology by ‘breaking’ the symmetrical equations, which intervenes in order to allow for the distinction between wife-takers and wife-givers. For example:

• [MB = FZH = SpF] is transformed into [(MB = WF) ≠ FZH]
• [FZ = MBW = SpM] is transformed into [FZ ≠ (WM = MBW)]
• [MBD = FZD] is transformed into [MBD ≠ FZD]
• [MBS = FZS = WB = ZH] is transformed into [(MBS = WB) ≠ (FZS = ZH)]

62But in the case of Mising, we observe the reverse process. Thus:

• [MB ≠ WF ≠ FZH] in Adi becomes [MB = WF = FBW = FZH] in Mising,
• [FZ ≠ WM ≠ MBW] becomes [FZ = WM = MBW]
• [MBD ≠ FZD] becomes [MBD = FZD]
• [MBS ≠ WB ≠ FZS ≠ ZH] becomes [MBS = WB = FZS = ZH]

63Here, it is not the symmetrical equations that are broken up but the category of wife-takers: DH = ZH = FZH in Adi is transformed into DH ≠ ZH ≠ FZH in Mising, just as the distinction between paternal and maternal fades into a general distinction between parallels and crosses. In this case, too, the change consists in turning certain close allies into consanguines, by transforming for example the husband of the paternal aunt (yaayo) into a maternal uncle (akiu/kakv), not in creating specific categories of affinity by splitting certain kin categories. In any case, it leads to a reduction or to a rearrangement of pre-existing categories, rather than their expansion. Finally, this process also results in the disappearance of skewing, once again contradicting the evolutionary perspective which systematically considers skewing as the end point or at least a late development of several chains of logically conceivable transformations. Indeed, proponents of the evolutionary approach most often imagine processes which, starting from Dravidian or Kariera systems, lead to Crow-Omaha systems. Here, on the contrary, we observe skewed systems transforming into an unskewed system. Eastern Tani linguistic and ethnographic data thus undercut the idea that Dravidian-like terminologies based on bilateral cross-cousin marriage are historically primordial. They also cast doubt on the supposed irreversibility of kinship transformations on which universal theories of kinship evolution are based.

I would like to express my thanks to all my Adi informants, without whose kind collaboration this work could never have been undertaken: Ratan Apang, Aido Ering Bamin, Leksar Modi, Dong Pertin, Jur Pertin, Une Pertin, Maksam Tayeng, Oken Tayeng. Special thanks go to Mark Post who kindly reviewed the first draft of this paper and made many useful suggestions.