CHAPTER NINE:

CONCLUDING REMARKS

Summary of kinship and affinal relationship

We have seen in the foregoing chapters that
We have seen in the foregoing chapters that kinship looms large in
Karo social organization, having a wide range of application. It has
important economic, political, jural and religious functions and provides
most of the norms of social conduct. In fact a Karo perceives human
relations in general in terms of kinship relations. It is said that for a Karo no
other Karo is a non-relative because everyone is a member of one of the
five clans (merga si lima) and these clans are horizontally linked by
intricate marriage relations. It is recognized that the foundation of the adat
is merga si lima, a phrase which Karo frequently use to describe their
society, and the sangkep si telu (literally, the three intact), i.e. the three
categories of kinship relations: senina or sembujak, anakberu and
kalimbubu.
The five dispersed clans divide, so to speak, Karo society into five
patrilineal units. A clan (merga) however has no politico-jural function.
There is no clan chief, no clan emblem and on no occasion do its members
or representatives assemble as a group. The only thing that can be said
about the clan is that it has a name, transmitted through the male line, and is
ideally an exogamous unit. Three of the five clans are strictly exogamous.
A clan-mate, like any other agnate, is a senina, but senina relationship at
this level may only be of significance among persons in frequent social
contact. However, occasional groups are frequently organized according to
the clan structure. For instance, in youth festivals in towns the sitting place
is usually divided into five, each occupied by boys belonging to one clan
who share the place with girls from a different clan. Boys and girls of the
same clan are sisters and may not sit or dance together. Thus, boys from
clan A sit with girls from clan B, boys from clan C sit with girls from clan
D and so on and the dance is arranged in a similar way. On such an
occasion the ideology of merga si lima finds its fullest expression.
The five clans are subdivided into 83 dispersed sub-clans, each of
which contains 13-18 sub-clans, also called merga. At the subclan level
myths and histories of origin are known. The first village founded by the
sub-clan ancestor is regarded as the village of origin but the genealogical
link between the sub-clan members is untraceable. A sub-clan is strictly
exogamous and here an agnate, besides being a senina, is also termed a
sembujak, literally of one stomach. However, a sub-clan, like a clan, is not
a political unit and in no economic or religious activity do they act as an
organized group.
The genealogical segment of the sub-clan is the lineage tracing
common descent from an ancestor six to eight generations back. A lineage
is an unnamed patrilineal unit whose founding ancestor is generally the
founder of a village or the ward of a village. For this reason the usual
reference to a lineage is in a political context and it is generally spoken of
as the bangsa taneh, literally, the people of the land, of such-and-such
village or ward. In the past the political superiority of the bangsa taneh was
manifested in their legal right to hold the village or the ward chieftainship.
The village headman, the pengulu, had to be a member of the bangsa taneh,
who succeeded to his office by the rule of primogeniture. This prerogative
of the bangsa taneh has been abolished by the Indonesian government and
there can be little doubt that this has initiated the gradual disintegration of
traditional political system of the Karo. It will be interesting to see how the
traditional system adapts itself to this new situation but so far the change
has not been strongly felt in the villages. Despite its lack of legal
foundation, the ideology of the bangsa taneh, its superiority in political,
ritual and ceremonial matters in the village community, still largely persist
This is clearly reflected in the fact that the present kepala kampung (a new
name for the village headman) who are appointed by election are generally
members of the bangsa taneh.
A lineage is not a residential unit and its members are generally widely
distributed in the villages surrounding a 'mother' village. A substantial part
of its members, however, live in the 'mother' village and this agnatic group
may be viewed as the core of both the lineage and the village community.
 For ritual and ceremonial purposes a lineage is subdivided into various
segments, minor and major, but due to the fact that partition occurs in each
generation, the largest property holding group is the domestic family
(djabu) which generally is composed of a single elementary family. Thus,
ownership of land and other economically useful property is vested in the
smallest segment of the lineage.
The djabu is the smallest and functionally the most important kin group
in the society. As a residential unit it occupies one or two sections of the
adat-house or, sometimes, a modern house or part of a modern house. As an
economic unit the djabu is characterized by a division of labour based on
differences of sex and age. Its composition may vary from a widow to a
paternal extended family, depending upon its phase of development in the
developmental cycle of the family. The patri potestas is vested in the head
of the djabu who is generally a male; only in cases where the husband has
died is the head of the djabu a female.
From the above description we are able to discern an essential feature
of Karo social organization; it is a markedly patrilineal system but one in
which the djabu or residential family is the basic social unit. Another
fundamental feature of Karo society is the prominence given to affinal
relations, and in the paragraphs that follow we will examine the anakberu
and kalimbubu institutions which, according to the Karo together with the
senina, constitute the sangkep si telu, the three basic categories of kinship.
The anakberu - kalimbubu relationship is an alliance relationship,
anakberu being the woman-taking category and kalimbubu the woman-
giving category. The relationship originates in marriage but here affinity,
like membership in the descent group, is transmitted and becomes
institutional enduring from generation to generation. It means that the
mother's brother, for instance, by being an af fine of Ego's
father, is also recognized as Ego's af fine and similarly the mother's
brother's son.
For the sake of convenience the term 'affinity' is employed occasionally
to substitute for the anakberu - kalimbubu relationship. This anology,
however, is not altogether correct (cf. Fischer, 1935: 287-9), but there is
unfortunately no better term available. 'Affinal relationships' as defined in
Notes and Queries on Anthropology (1954:76), 'link a person with his or
her spouse's kin, e.g. the relationship of a man to his wife's sister or to his
mother's brother's wife'. The definition implies that the totality of 'the
kinship system' (ibid, p.76) is composed of kinship and affinity, the former
being the 'relationship actually or putatively traced through parent-child or
sibling relations' (ibid, p.75). This dichotomy, however, is not in
conformity with Karo categorization of kinship. A cognate, for instance,
may be a senina, an anakberu or a kalimbubu. A man's MZS is his senina
while his MBS, as stated above, is his kalimbubu. Moreover, some who are
affines by the above definition are, in fact, not related by an anakberu -
kalimbubu tie. For example, a man with his WFZS is in mutual senina
relation.
The institutionalized anakberu - kalimbubu relationship is extended to
the lineage. At the lineage level we find the anakberu tua (the senior
anakberu) and the kalimbubu tua (the senior kalimbubu) deriving both from
the anakberu and kalimbubu of the apical ancestor of the lineage, the
former referring to the lineage of his sister's husband and the latter to the
natal lineage of his wife. In theory anakberu - kalimbubu relationship is
recognized at each level of segmentation but in practice effective anakberu
- kalimbubu relations are limited to immediate anakberu and kalimbubu.
The immediate kalimbubu of a man are both the lineage men of his
mother's brother and his father-in-law, the first being his kalimbubu by
birth and the second his kalimbubu by marriage. His immediate anakberu
are the lineage men of his father's sisters' husbands and his sisters'
husbands.
Unlike the senina relation in which reciprocity is the guiding principle,
the salient characteristic of anakberu - kalimbubu relation is that they are
asymmetrical. Kalimbubu is culturally recognized as superior to the
anakberu and this entails numerous asymmetrical duties and obligations
from the anakberu to the kalimbubu , A man must treat his kalimbubu, his
'visible god', with deference and render them continuous service. The
service of anakberu covers a broad field of Karo social life, particularly in
the economic and political fields. We have seen in Chapter 7 that the
economic assistance of the anakberu is even greater in importance than that
of the senina whilst its political service is integrated with the ongoing
political system. The anakberu is the institutionalized guarantor, witness
and mediator and consequently no jural procedure may be carried out both
at the family and the lineage level without the participation of the anakberu.
 The bearing of Karo evidence on some current anthropological
issues.
For a comparative study of patrilineal descent systems this
classification of kinship categories and the important political role of the
affines is of great interest. In his analysis on segmentary systems Smith
(1956:43) says: 'the fundamental concepts of segmentary theory centre
about the definition of a system of political relations, and on the basis of
this, differentiate lineages from other kinship groupings in terms of
segmentary principles and structures which reflect and discharge political
functions'. Further (p.64) he says: 'political relations and segmentation are
synonymous, and that corporate group character emerges in the context of
segmentary political relations'. In Africa we find that 'the lineage is not only
a corporate unit in the legal or jural sense but is also the primary political
association. Thus the individual has no legal or political status except as a
member of a lineage; or to put it in another way, all legal and political
relations in the society take place in the context of the lineage system'
(Fortes, 1953:26). Among the Karo, however, this is not so and it is an error
to assume that, in terms of political action, a lineage or its segment is an
autonomous group because the political service of the anakberu is an
integral part of the ongoing political system.
Another interesting feature which emerges from the asymmetrical
anakberu - kalimbubu relation is a specific interpersonal relation among
immediate kin, namely the relation with a mother's brother and father's
sister. It has been recorded that in many societies the nature of the
interpersonal relation between a child and a parent is extended to the latter's
kinmen, and sometimes the mother's brother is identified as a male mother
and the father's sister as a female father (see Radcliffe-Brown, 1952; 1950:
37-8; Gluckman, 1955: 61-2; Firth, 1961: 212). Radcliffe-Brown writes
(1952: 25): 'Since it is from his mother that he expects care and indulgence
he looks for the same sort of treatment from the people of his mother's
group, i.e. from all his maternal kin. On the other hand it is to his paternal
kin that he owes obedience and respect'. Further he states in his conclusion
that 'In patrilineal societies of a certain type, the special pattern of
behaviour between a sister's son and the mother's brother is derived from
the pattern of behaviour between the child and the mother, which is itself
the product of the social life within the family in the narrow sense'.
 In contrast to this, among the Karo, the affective tie which
characterizes the relation between a son and his mother is not extended to
his mother's agnates and, again, the father's sister is by no means a father
figure. As the mother's brother is a typical representative of the kalimbubu,
instead of being a mother figure, he is, rather, a father figure. The mother's
brother represents 'the visible god' whose anger and frustration is believed
to be capable of causing harm to his sister's son. Thus the tie between a
child and his mother's brother is one of respect and, as already stated, this is
clearly reflected in the opening sentence of a Karo lullaby: 'Grow up my
child and obey your mama (MB)'.
To disobey one's mother's brother is regarded as morally worse than to
disobey one's father. For that reason if pressure is to be put on a person it is
not uncommon that his or her mother's brother comes into the picture. Thus
when Simpang, a girl, decided to marry Ngambati despite the strong
opposition of her father and other agnates, including her sister, her mother's
brother invited her to come to Kuta Buluh. Nobody knew what her
mother's brother said but thereafter it was known that she would not marry
Ngambati and people in the village believed that this was due to the
intervention of her mother's brother.
A man's father's sister and her husband stand as anakberu who are
obliged to render him service in various ways. For him both of them fall in
the category of the mother figure.1 They are what the Karo call si latih,
those who are tired (through working hard), the servants. Life is for him
easy at his father's sister's home. At the parental generation it is with the
FZH, and only with him, that he jokes.
Using the above hypothesis of Radcliffe-Brown as a starting point,
Homans and Schneider (1955) put forward what they call an 'efficient-
cause theory', aiming principally to refute the 'final-cause theory' of Levi-
Strauss (in Les Structures elementaires de la Parente, 1949). The final-
type of explanation, as defined by Homans and Schneider, refers to Levy-
Strauss' argumentation 'that mother's brother's daughter marriage occurs in
more societies than does father's sister's daughter m a rried because the
1
Like the mother's sister, father's sister is called and referred to as bibi. The
terminological analogy, as pointed out in Appendix I, runs counter to the basic principle of
kinship categorization. So the system is, structurally speaking, confusing. It only makes
sense if a psychological explanation is taken into account, that is, that both the father's
sister and the mother's sister represent the mother figure.
former is “better” for a society at creating a higher degree of organic
solidarity ' (p.58). On this they comment (p.58-9) :
This form (of cross - cousin m a rriage) is indeed the more common,
and we should give Levi-Strauss full credit for being correct, did we
not bel i e ve that it is more common, not for Levi -Strauss's reasons,
but rather because societies in which jural authority over ego is vested
in father are more numerous than those it is vested in mother's
brother. In the locus of authority and the personal, sentimental
interests it precipitates we have provided an efficient-cause type of
explanation. Note that the facts on which we have based our theory
are just the ones to which Levi-Strauss pays least at tention. He has
little to say about what we have called 'interpersonal relations' and
less about authority .
It is beyond the scope of this paper to deal with com p a rative and
statistical analysis of cross-cousin m a rriage .
Nevertheless, it is justifi a ble to point out that my Karo m a terial gives
no support to Homans' and Schn e i der's
2
h y p o t h e s i s . Furthermore , I would l i ke to argue , that their
inclusi o n of the Batak (p.34 & 37) to support their contenti o n
is unfounded. Preferential m a t r ilateral cross - cousin marriage
2
The book itself has given ri s e to a chain of react i o ns , most impo r
tant of which is Rodney Needham's: Structure and sent i ment , a test case
in social anthropology, 1960.

among the Karo, which I believe reflects the Batak situation in general,
is not in the presence of the sentimental tie with
3
the mother's brother. Instead, we have here a society where
maternal cross-cousin marriage is preferredbut the mother's brother is
recognized as a man of authority and sister's son - mother's brother
relationship is not an affectionate one. In fact what often happens is that
cross-cousin marriage, instead of resulting from an affective tie, is the
outcome of pressure from the mother's brother.
The basis of Karo social structure
In the analysis of interpersonal relations among the Karo the distinction
of relatives according to sex is of cardinal importance. Extension of kinship
behaviour from lateral to collateral kin does exist but there are limits,
imposed by
the difference of sex. At the parental generation the pattern of
behaviour towards one's father is extended to the father's brother but not to
the father's sister and
3
Again, Needham's assumption that cross-cousin marriage among the
Batak is 'prescriptive' (ibid, p.9) is undoubtedly erroneous (cf. Löffler,
1964).

similarly the behaviour towards one's mother is extended to the

mother's sister but not to the mother's brother. To explain this phenomenon
we have to understand that siblings of opposite sex may not be equated in
this kinship system because a sister stands as anakberu to her brother and
the latter as kalimbubu to his sister. This fact demonstrates that the
dominant position of the mother's brother over his sister's son is indeed a
reflection of the dominant position of a man over his sister. To illuminate
this point let us examine the position of women in Karo kinship structure.
Firstly we will review the place of women in her natal lineage and
secondly in the anakberu - kalimbubu relationship, that is, in the
relationship between her natal lineage and her conjugal lineage. In her natal
lineage a woman is a special kind of agnate, a secondary agnate with very
limited rights. First of all descent is traced through the male line and in no
circumstances may a woman continue an otherwise dying family line. The
institution of ambi1 anak, found in
a number of Indonesian societies, in which, under special
circumstances 'male descent' is continued by a female child, does not exist
among
the Karo. In addition adoption is not a customary practice so that only
the birth of a son in the djabu may secure the continuation of
the family line. The need for a son is consequently strongly
emphasized in the culture and is recognized as a prerequisite for a happy
and stable marriage. Unless a son has been born in the djabu there is
always a great likelihood that the husband will remarry and

this leads to the fact that sonless women, especially young mothers,
live under great strain. The following examples will illustrate this point.
In February 1961 I attended an occasion in which a
sonless mother, who had already two daughters, gave birth to a third
baby. Everyone present realized that the matter was serious: the family
would be happy if the woman gave birth to a son but in case
the baby was again a girl, the family would be terribly disappointed.
The great moment arrived when the baby was born but immediately a
woman shouted disappointingly: 'a girl again'. Hearing this the mother
fainted and in a panic - people used to shout repeatedly calling the patient's
name when his or her life is thought to be in
danger - the priest arrived. She regained consciousness after
about
half an hour. In another case when a sonless mother gave birth to a
fourth daughter the placenta, due to her great psychological stress, was
retained and eventually had to be removed under operation.
In accordance with the strict patrilineal descent a woman, strictly
speaking, enjoys no rights over inheritance and succession. Regardless of
her marital status, a daughter is not recognized as a co-parcener in the djabu
except for small items like mats and pandanus containers. It means that a
daughter of a sonless family
is not entitled to inherit valuables like land, cattle and a house from her
natal family because the adat prescribes that it is her closest male agnates,
in genealogical terms, who have the full parcenary rights over them. For
moral considerations a woman may

get a buffalo or a plot of land from her natal djabu but as far as land is
concerned, she only has a maintenance right over it. After she dies the land
reverts to her natal lineage.
That full membership of the merga (clan or sub-clan) is
restricted to men is clearly seen in the symbolic system in which
a clear distinction is made between the affiliation of men and that of
women. Only the membership of men are signified by the term merga
whilst membership of women are signified by a different term, beru which
means 'woman' or 'women' (Figure 7). To denote that he belongs to Tarigan
clan, for instance, a man says: 'Mergangku Tarigan' (My clan is Tarigan),
but his sister will say: 'Aku beru Tarigan' (I am the female member of
Tarigan). Similarly the
senina relationship is limited to the relations between agnates of the
same sex so that in jural sense senina denotes mainly the relation between
male members of the lineage, sub-clan or clan. Agnates of different sex are
in mutual turang relations and the term implies anakberu - kalimbubu
relations.
If a woman marries, as is most likely, there is a shift in her lineage
affiliation. 'She has been purchased' and, by marriage,
becomes the member of her husband's lineage. She is said to be the
people (djelma) of her husband's lineage and again, this is substantiated by
various terms concerning the marriage process. For example, both sexes
employ distinct terms for the word 'to marry', empo for a man and sereh for
a woman. The literal meaning of the

words are no longer known but it is very likely that empo, like empu in
Malay, means 'master' and sereh, like serah in Malay, means 'transfer'. But
the jural implication of marriage is more
explicitly expressed in the sentence: 'I like to marry you'. If the
speaker is a man, he says: 'I would like you to belong to me'
(Bangku ateku kam), but if the speaker is a woman it then sounds:
'I would like to belong to you' (Bandu ateku aku). Furthermore, the
principal part of the marriage payment is termed tukor, purchase, and a wife
is sometimes referred to as tukor emas, the purchase of the gold.
In her conjugal djabu a woman enjoys limited rights. A woman may
acquire considerable influence and prestige as a mother but nevertheless her
inferior jural position is well-marked. In her
conjugal djabu she has the rights of maintenance but has no parcenary
rights. But more important is the fact that, strictly speaking, a woman has
no right over her children so that in divorce a woman has to leave all her
children. Even a young widow has no right to marry unless she divorces her
deceased husband and returns part of the marriage payment and then leaves
her children with the closest male agnate of her late husband.
Let us now examine the anakberu - kalimbubu relationship in the light
of the relationship between married women and their natal lineages. We
have seen that agnates of different sex, instead of being in a senina relation,
are in mutual turang relations, i.e. a

female married turang stands as anakberu and a male turang as

kalimbubu. It is a reflection of the relationship between a married woman
with her natal lineage, to which she stands as anakberu and her natal
lineage - to be exact, the male members of the lineage, their wives and
unmarried daughters - stand as kalimbubu. This, in
my view, is a crucial fact because in analysing Batak kinship system,
we generally admit too readily that anakberu - kalimbubu (in other Batak
societies boru - hula-hula or boru - mora) relationship with
all its implications is basically the relationship between 'the woman
taking category' and 'the woman-giving category'. In other words, it
is the relationship between men and men.
Interestingly enough deeper understanding of their symbolic system
reveals that that is not the case: the contraposition between anakberu and
kalimbubu represents the contraposition between female and male or, at any
rate, female quality and male quality. In
Chapter 7 I have described that the literal meaning of anakberu (anale,
people; beru, woman) is 'woman's people' or 'women's people' whereas
among some other Bataks, namely the Toba and the Mandailing, they are
even called boru which means 'woman' or 'women'. Thus the female
members of the lineage, their husbands, their children, in short their
conjugal lineages are all identified as 'the women's people' by their natal
lineage. In this marriage alliance the female members of the natal lineage
are literally and, to a large extent, functionally the chief exponent in the
anakberu and it implies that kalimbubu, which

literally means 'the crown of the head', represents masculinity, i.e. the
male members of the lineage.
We may thus conclude that among the Karo both patrilineal kinship
and anakberu - kalimbubu institution, the two pivots of their kinship
system, are manifestations of a single principle, that is the social dominance
of males over females. It is a social system in
which the dominance of males, 'the visible gods', over females and
those associated with them has become institutionalized to create
and perpetuate the principal formal groupings of the social structure

APPENDIX I:
KARO KINSHIP TERMINOLOGY

In the grandparental generation nini is the sole term for grandparent.

The third ascending generation is called ente, the fourth entah and the fifth
empong but in general the term nini covers them all and it is even applied to
old strangers. Sex is frequently
distinguished by adding bulang (headdress or cap for man) for male
and tudong (woman's headdress) for female. Clan names in simplified
forms serve also as additional terms for female nini but not for
male nini• Thus a grandmother whose natal clan is Tarigan may be
called nini tigan or tigan; if she belongs to Ginting clan she is nini iting or
iting; etc. In some parts of Karoland there is another
term, laki, for nini bulang.
In the parental generation father is bapa, mother is nande; father's
brother, like father, is bapa and his wife, like mother, is nande (Figure 13);
father's sister, like mother's sister is bibi but the husband of the former is
bengkila whilst the husband of the latter is, like father and father's brother,
bapa; mother's brother is ma
 and his wife mami. Thus the term bapa for father is extended to
collateral agnates but not the term nande for mother whose sister is bibi.
Again bapa is extended to MZH and nande to FBW although neither of
them are consanguineally related. Peculiarly enough MZ and FZ are

both bibi which, as we will see later, does not conform with the
structural principle because each of them belongs to a distinct kinship
category.
For this reason it is easier to discern the three categories of kinship by
looking at the terms for male rather than female at the parental generation.
Bapa (F), mama (MB) and bengkila (FZH) represent senina, kalimbubu and
anakberu respectively. MZH (bapa)
is included in the senina category not on account of patrilineal descent
but because Ego shares the same kalimbubu with him. His kalimbubu by
marriage is Ego's kalimbubu by birth (See the classification of anakberu
and kalimbubu in Chapter 7). On the same principle, as seen in Figure 13,
FMZS and MFZS are both called
bapa; with the former Ego's father shares the same kalimbubu by birth
whilst the latter's kalimbubu by birth is Ego's father's kalimbubu by
marriage (thus the kalimbubu by birth of Ego). The various bapa which
derives from a common kalimbubu are shown in Figure 17.
Having a common anakberu links people in senina relations and among
them those who stand one generation higher than Ego are Ego's bapa. For
instance, a man calls his ZHMB bapa because they share a common
anakberu, that is, the former ZH (anakberu) is the latter's ZS (anakberu). On
similar grounds a man calls both his FZSWF and his DHMF bapa (Figure
17). To sum up when the speaker is a man all his male senina who belong
to his parental generation are his bapa

Despite the fact that with regard to relatives at the parental generation
there are no distinctions in terminology based on the sex of the speaker, the
nature of their relation with the speaker
is determined by the sex of the speaker. Unlike a man whose bapa is
his senina, for a married woman bapa is one of the terms denoting her
kalimbubu. As has been pointed out in Chapter 7 a married woman is no
longer a full member of her natal lineage and by a strong identification with
the lineage of her husband becomes one of the anakberu of her own natal
lineage. Thus for a married woman, her father and all the senina of her
father, including her own brother, are her kalimbubu; this means that the
kalimbubu of her father stand
as puang kalimbubu to her, the anakberu of her father stand as senina
to her, and so on.
e wife of each bapa is nande provided she is not an agnate of one's
mother or one's wife. If she is a sister or a classificatory
sister of one's mother or one generation above Ego's wife she is called
bibi.
On the basis of birth order in the sibling group the terms tua, tengah
and nguda, which mean senior, middle and junior respectively, are added
for relatives of the parental generation. In the father's
sibling group, for instance, the eldest FB is called bapa tua, the
'middle' FB bapa tengah and the youngest FB bapa nguda; similarly the
father's eldest sister is called bibi tua, his 'middle' sister
bibi tengah and his youngest sister bibi nguda. In reference to one's

actual father, however, the term tua, tengah or nguda is not employed
so that a man has no bapa tua if his father is the eldest son in the sibling
group. On the other hand he may have more than
one bapa tengah because ’middle', in this respect, with the exception of
father's youngest brother, covers all the younger brothers of the eldest bapa.
Bapa tengah is a bapa whose birth order is between the eldest and the
youngest bapa.
The mother's brother, mama, is a representative of the kalimbubu. As
shown in Figure 13^ besides the agnates of MB there are other relatives
who are also called mama, namely FMBS, MMZS and MMBS. The FMBS
is a kalimbubu deriving from the marriage of Ego's FF and so the
'kalimbubu by birth' of Ego's father. As he belongs to Ego's father's
generation he is called and referred to as mama. The MMZS is mama
because his mother is the MZ of Ego's MB (mama). As we will see
later they are in a senina sepemeren relation. The MMBS belongs to
 a distinct category of kalimbubu because his lineage is the 'kalimbubu
by birth' of Ego's MB. He stands as the kalimbubu of Ego's kalimbubu
(puang kalimbubu). Further examples of mama are shown in Figure 18 in
which we see that the kinship term mama includes one's WF, WFWB,
WFWMBS, BWF and SWFF. Thus every male kalimbubu, including the
kalimbubu and the kalimbubu of puang kalimbubu, who belongs to one's
parental generation is mama. The wife of every mama is mami. In addition
to this the daughter of the puang kalimbubu who stands one generation
above Ego is also called mami (see MMBD in Figure 13).
On the other hand every male anakberu, including the anakberu
menteri and the anakberu of the anakberu menteri, who belongs to one's
parental generation is bengkila (Figures 13 & 19). The wife of bengkila is
bibi. As a man's father-in-law is his mama and his mother- in-law mami,
the father-in-law of a woman is her bengkila and her mother-in-law bibi.
In Ego's generation there is a sharp distinction in terminology
according to the sex of the speaker. As has been pointed out earlier a sibling
of the same sex is senina whilst a sibling of opposite sex is turang. Thus,
senina means brother if the speaker is a man but if the speaker is a woman,
senina means 'sister'; her brother is her turang. It is important to note that
the term senina in this context has a specific meaning which is distinct from
the senina we have been referring to in the foregoing pages. Here the senina
of a man is only part of the above-mentioned senina, limited to the senina
of his own generation. Thus, for a man the sons of his bapa are his senina
and their daughters his turang.
There is a specific term for a man's senina and turang who are the
children of his mother's sisters. With the former he is in senina sepemeren
relation and with the latter turang sepemeren (Figures 13 & 14). The term
sepemeren denotes that they have the same ber£-ber£, a term signifying
maternal clan affiliation.
Among cross-cousins the anakberu and kalimbubu are distinguished. If
the speaker is a man both the son and daughter of his MB (mama), that is,
his kalimbubu, are his impal but if the speaker is a woman only her MBD is
her impal whilst her MBS is her turang impal. The opposite holds true with
regard to the children of the anakberu: the son and daughter of bibi (FZ)
and bengkila (FZH). If the speaker is a woman both the FZS and FZD are
referred to as impal whilst for a man impal is confined to FZS whilst his
FZD is his turang impal.
To sum up, cross-cousin of the same sex, regardless of the sex of the
speaker, is impal; a cross-cousin of opposite sex is either impal or turang
impal; for a man the daughter of his kalimbubu (MB) is his impal whilst the
daughter of his anakberu (FZH) is his turang-impal whilst the son of
anakberu (FZH) is her impal. Both impal and turang impal are reciprocal
terms.
It should be noted that this terminology is in accordance with the Karo
marriage rule by which paternal cross-cousin marriage (FZD) is strictly
prohibited. In other words impal marriage is desirable but turang impal
marriage is prohibited. As has been stressed in Chapter 7 this rule serves to
perpetuate the enduring anakberu - kalimbubu relations.
The terms impal and turang impal are extended to every anakberu -
kalimbubu relation within Ego's own generation. In order to cover the
whole relation at this level we only need to add another term, turangku, a
reciprocal term referring to the relation between a man with either the wife
of his kalimbubu, say his MBSW or his WBW, or the daughter of his puang
kalimbubu like his MBWBD or his MMBSD. It has to be noted, however,
that the wife of one's kalimbubu is the daughter of one's puang kalimbubu.
In his own generation every male anakberu (including the anakberu menteri
and the anakberu of anakberu menteri) and kalimbubu (including the puang
kalimbubu and the kalimbubu of puang kalimbubu) of a man is his impal;
in addition to this the daughters of his kalimbubu are also his impal; but the
daughter of his puang kalimbubu and the wives of his kalimbubu and puang
kalimbubu are his turangku (Figure 20); the daughters of his anakberu
(bengkila), including his anakberu menteri, are his turang impal.
At the same time impal is a reciprocal term for spouse so that the impal
of a man is both his MBD and his wife and the impal of a woman is both
her FZS and her husband. Again this is in accordance with the preferential
marriage mentioned above in which the MBD of a man is his potential wife
and the FZS c£ a woman is a potential husband. The extension of this
principle gives rise to the fact that the wife of a man's senina is his impal
and the husband of a woman's senina is also her impal.
In the first descending generation the term anak is used with reference
to one's own children as well as the children of one's senina. This explains
why Ego's mother's brother's daughter's children in Figure 13 are referred to
as anak; the MBDH is now the senina of Ego. By a similar principle the
children of Ego's FZS in Figure 14 are referred to as anak; the FZSW is
now Ego's senina.
The term here-here is used in reference to the children of one's
anakberu and the term permen to the children of one's kalimbubu. A son-in-
law is also bere-bere or kela and a daughter-in-law permen or permain.
A grandchild, regardless of the sex of the speaker, is referred to as
kempu. It is applied to every relative two or more generations lower than
Ego.
The vocative system is based on seniority of generation and birth order.
With regard to the grandparental and parental generations the vocative
system coincides with the reference system. Thus the terms nini for a
grandparent, bapa for father, mama for MB, for instance, are employed both
as terms of reference and terms of address. The only exception here is that
the terms mami for WM and bengkila for HF are never used as vocatives
because a person is in avoidance relation with a parent-in-law of opposite
sex.
This avoidance has a wide application and various degrees of mami
and bengkila are included. Mami avoidance here includes: (i) the wives of
the classificatory brothers of a man's father-in-law; (ii) the sisters and
classificatory sisters of his mother-in-law; (iii) the wife of WMB (puang
kalimbubu) and also (iv) the wife of WMMBS (see mama in Figure 18).
Bengkila avoidance for a woman includes (i) the brothers and classificatory
brothers of her father-in-law; (ii) the husbands of the sisters and
classificatory sisters of her mother-in-law; (iii) the HFZH and (iv) the
HFFZDH.
In Ego's generation vocative terminology is determined by order of
birth. Any junior relative according to his or her birth order is called by
name and a senior is called kaka. This applies also to affines so that a
person addresses a younger sibling of his or her spouse by his or her
personal name and an elder sibling by the term kaka. However in various
places, including Kuta Gamber and Liren and their surrounding villages,
there is an exception. In this area a reciprocal term for brother-in-law is
silih.
At this generational level turangku avoidance is practiced, that is
between a man and the wife of his kalimbubu, namely his WBW, his
MBSW, etc. (See Figure 20).
Children and grandchildren, as well as other relatives in the descending
generations, are addressed by their personal names. The only exception
occurs with reference to the name of a child-in-law of opposite sex; this is
based on the avoidance relation between child and parent-in-law mentioned
above.

Conclusion
The structuring of all kinship and affinal relations into three categories
is well manifested in the kinship terminology, especially in its referential
aspects. With minor exceptions the nomenclature which is used for three
generations — ego's, one ascending and one descending generation — may
be classified into three sets of kinship terms, each referring to senina,
anakberu and kalimbubu respectively Thus one set is employed for those
with whom a man has a senina or sembujak relation, i.e. his agnates and
those with whom he either has a common anakberu or a common
kalimbubu. The second set is for those who stand to him as anakberu,
including the anakberu of his anakberu (anakberu menteri) and the
anakberu of his anakberu menteri. In theory it may be extended to the
anakberu menteri of his anakberu menteri or even further but in actual
practice the limit is the anakberu of the anakberu menteri. The third set is
those who stand to him as kalimbubu, including the kalimbubu of his
kalimbubu (puang kalimbubu) and the kalimbubu of his puang kalimbubu.
In the kinship terms referring to the generations of grandparents and
grandchildren the classification of the three categories of kinship is no
longer expressed. This does not mean however that at that level the
principle of the classification ceases to operate. In
the minds of the people it is always clear which grandparent is
anakberu, which grandson stands as kalimbubu, etc.
Figure 15
Man's terms of refer e nce for aff i nes
A=O A=0
nini - b u l a n g nini - tudong nini - b u l a n g nin i - tudo n g

0=AA=O =6 =o 0=A
mami mama bapa bibi mama mami mama mami

k6A” o1 A6

impal senina turang impal turangku impa l

A= O 0=A
impal tura ngku impal senina -
(sil i h ) sipar i b a nen
= A <b=A o = A o = A

Figure 17: Term of address and reference: bapa

ECO
A
A = bapa
1 = common kalimbubu
2common anakberu

Figure 18: Term of address and refer e nce : mama

A - mama
1 = kalimbubu
2 = puang kalimbubu (kalimbubu of the kalimbubu)
3 = kalimbubu of the puang kalimbubu

Figure 19: Term of address and reference: bengkila

A
A
A=oA
/
A o=A
EGO

A = bengkila
1 = anakberu
2 = anakberu menteri (anakberu of the anakberu)
3 = anakberu of the anakberu menteri
 APPENDIX II : A WEDDING INVITATION
WEDDING ANNOUNCEMENT
W i th respect .
We inform you herewith , that agreement with the anakberu and senina
as well as ka l imbubu has been achieved , so that on Wednesday 2.11 . 1
960 the wedding of our grandch i ld/child/brother or sister :
UDJAN SEMBIRING with
MUATULINA beru KARO
w i ll take place at Lau Perimbon. We thus sincerely hope that you, and
other relat i ve s who ought to be invited , come early on that day so that we
meet together to promote and to celebrate our ceremony . Your coming is
welcomed . With kind regard fro m we who send you this invitat i on .
Liren / L au Per i mbon, 21 . 10 . 1 960
We the inviters :
The party of the br i d e g r oom:
1. Elok Sembiring , his bapa - Liren .
2. Ronah beru Pinem, his nande - Liren
3 . Degur Sembiring, his mid bapa - Liren
4 . Badjar Semb i ring, his younger b a p a - Liren
5 . Nimbang Semb i ring , his mid bapa - Liren 6. Merlang Sembiring,
his mid bapa - Pamah 7 . Nutup Sembiring , his senina - Liren
8. Minde Sembiring , his senina - Liren .
9 . Piher Sembiring , his nini - Lau Per i mbon
10. Djendam u li Semb i ring , his nini - T. Lingga
11. Tarlong Semb i ring , his senina - T. Lingga
12. Ngidas Sembiring, his nini - Kutabuluh
13 . Djendamalem Semb i ring, his bapa - Kutabuluh
14 . Beren-nggit Sem b iring, his senina - Kutabuluh
15 . Ngari Sembiring , his senina - Kempawa
 16 . Ngerip Semb i ring , his senina - Lau Per i mbon
17 . Ngadjarbana Semb i ring, his bapa - Lau Per i mbon
18 . Rantjap Sem b i ring , his bapa - Lau Per i mbon
The party of the bride:
Rana Karo2, her actual bapa - Lau Per i mbon Pelen beru Tarigan, her
actual nande -
Expressly stencil l e d by Toko Bukit Mbe l in Gunana Phone 88
Kabandjahe
WEDDING ANNOUNCEMENT To
Our respected (Kalimbubu
(Scmbujak at
(Anakberu Tingger Pinem
Kt . Gamber

NOTE:
The cross i n gs out indicate that the inviters are the party of the
br i de g room and that Tingger Pin e m stands as kal i mbubu to the
inviters

ft »
r:
ft \
ft'-.
Alu mehamat.
Arah surat enda ibori t ak e n kami man bandu, maka enggd arih f
t ’>
ers a da r a s anak boru scnina bago po ar a h bagin knlimbubu, oma-
ka ibaa wari Rabu tan g gal 2  11 « I960, erdemu baJu/petutu r k e n
kem p u /anak/turang knmi~: Is
iIi
 u k u r. M odjuah-djuah ib a s kami n a r i s i e r t e p n h . -
L lr o n /Lau Perim bon, 2 1 -1 0 -1 9 6 0 .- Kami s ie rl'e n a n :
Arah S i p e m p o k e n
1'. Elok S em b irin g ,' bnpana L irenC
2'. Ronah b r.P in o m , nandona - L i r e n .
3'. Dogur S em b irin g , banana to n g ah - L iren '.
4'. Bad j a r S em b irin g , bapana nguda - Liren*.
5'. Nimbang ^ o m b irin g ,b a p an a te n g n h - Liren*. 6*. Morlnng
<?o m biring,bapana to n g a h - Pamah, 7'. Nutup S em b irin g , so n in n n
a - Liron*. &. Mindo s e m b irin g , ae n in an a - L i r o n , O'.’ P ih o r S e
m b irin g , n i n i n a - Lau P e rin b o n .
10‘. D jondam uli S e m b ir in g ,n in in a - T'.Lingga*. 11*. T a rlo n g
S em b irin g , s e n in a n a - T .L in g g a . 12*. N gidas S em b irin g , n in
in a - K u tn b u lu h . 13'. Djendamnlom S em b irin g , bapana - K u tab u
lu h . 14*. B e ro n - n g g it S em b irin g , s e n in a n a - K u tah u lu h .
15*. N gari S em b irin g , s e n in a n a - Kompav/a. 16*. N gerip S em b
irin g , so n ip an a V L a u Porombon* 17*. N g ad jarb an a S em b irin g ,
bapana - Lau Porofnbon. 1 8 . R ant jap S e m b irin g , bapana - Lau P e
rim b o n .-
Arah Sinoreh:
1*. Rana K aro2, banana simupus - Lau P e rip b o n .
2*. P o le n b r . T a r i g a n , nandena sim upus- Lau Perim bon 3',
Kidu K a r j2 , bapa tengahna - Lau IP^war'.
4‘. T andjong K nro2, bapa udana - Lau P erim bon. 5*. N apal K aro2,
tu ra n g n a - Lau^Tawar.
6*. G c lto h K aro2, n in in a - 7j#fPerimbon*. 7*. Djanempa F a r o
2 , ninincg-fTau Perimbon*. 8*. S a k ti K aro2, n i n i i m ^ - Lau P erim
bon.
9*. D jum palingga Karp2y tu ra n g n a - T ig n lin g g a . 10*. R cn g
cti K a ro ^ /^ tu ra n g n a - Lau Perimbon*.
11*. N alan g i Kjytt, tu ra n g n a - Lau P erim bon. 12*. Mokken
J£4ro2, tu ra n g n a - Lau Tawar*.
13'. R aknt^ftaro2, tu ra n g n a - B a tu re d a n .
 14*. Spm'pit K aro 2 , tu ra n g n a - Lau Perim bon

2 BERITA ERDEMU BAJU f

r{< °( v OA
XX Sembu^nk- )knmi:
u i-
An ak—be-ru ) r in g a n mod junk-d ju a h
|;<

REFERENCES

Abbreviations
AA
Bijdragen
Tijdschrif
t

AA — American Anthropologist. Menasha, Wisconsin.

Bijdragen — Bijdragen tot de Taal-, Land- en Volkenkunde van
Nederlandsch-Indie. Den Haag.
Tijdschrift — Tijdschrift voor Indische Taal-, Land en Volkenkunde. Batavia.

BIRO PUSAT STATISTIK

1962 Sensus penduduk 1961 Republik Indonesia. Djakarta
BRUNER, EDWARD M. 1959 Kinship organization among the urban
Batak of Sumatra. Transactions, the New York Academy of
Sciences 22: 118-25.
______ 1961 Urbanization and ethnic identity in North Sumatra AA 63:
508-21.
COLE, FAY-COOPER 1945 The peoples of Malaysia. New York, D. van
Nostrand.
CUNNINGHAM, CLARK E. 1958 The postwar migration of the Toba-
Bataks to East Sumatra. Yale University, Southeast Asia Studies,
Cultural Report Series.
DUMONT, LOUIS 1957 Hierarchy and Marriage Alliance in South Indian
Kinship. Occasional papers of the Royal Anthropological Institute.
DUYVENDAK, J. PH. 1940 Inleiding tot de ethnologie van de Indische
archipel. Batavia, J.B. Wolter's.
ENDA BOEMI, A. 1925 Het grondenrecht in de Bataklanden. Leiden,
Eduard Ijdo.
EVANS -PRITCHARD, E .E. 1951 Kinship and marriage among the Nuer.
Oxford, Clarendon Press.
FIRTH, RAYMOND 1961 We, the Tikopia: a sociological study of
kinship in primitive Polynesia. London, George Allen & Unwin
(3rd impression).
FISCHER, H. TH. 1935 De aanverwantschap bij enige volken van de
Nederlands-Indische Archipel. Mensch en Maatschappij II: 285-
97, 365-78.
______ 1952 Inleiding tot de culturele anthropologie van Indonesie.
Haarlem, De Erven F. Bohn (3e druk).
FORTES, MEYER 1953 The structure of unilineal descent groups. AA
55:17-41
GEDDES, W.R. 1957 Nine Dayak nights. Melbourne, Oxford University
Press
GLUCKMAN, MAX 1955 Custom and conflict in Africa. Oxford, Basil
Blackwell.
HEINE-GELDERN, ROBERT 1935 The archaeology and art of Sumatra.
Weiner Beitrage zur Kulturgeschichte und Linguistik, 3.
HOMANS, GEORGE C. and SCHNEIDER, DAVID M. 1955 Marriage,
authority and final causes: a study of unilateral cross-cousin
marriage. Glencoe, The Free Press
HURGRONJE, C. SNOUCK 1906 The Achehnese, vol. 1. Translated by
A.W.S O'Sullivan. Leiden, E.J. Brill.
JOUSTRA, M. 1902 Mededeelingen omtrent en opmerkingen naar
 aanleiding van het Pek Oewaloeh of het doodenfeest der Merga
Sembiring. Tijdschrift 45: 541-56.
1903 Eene verklaring van den naam van het Sembiringsche doodenfeest.
Tijdschrift 46: 472-5.
1904 Karo-Bataksche vertellingen. Verhandelingen van het Bataviaasch
Genootschap van Künsten en
Wetenschappen, deel 56, le stuk. Batavia, Albrecht. 1907 Karo-Bataksch
Woordenboek. Leiden, E.J. Brill.
1918 Korte mededeeling in zake het Sembiringsche
doodenfeest. Bijdragen 74: 618-9.

1926 Batakspiegel. Leiden, S.C. van Doesburgh

KENNEDY, RAYMOND
1943 Islands and peoples of the Indies. City of
Washington, the Smithsonian Institution.
KEUNING, J.
1948 Verwantschapsrecht en volksordening,
huwelijksrecht en erfrecht in het
Koeriagebied van Tapanoeli. Leiden, Eduard Ijdo.
1958 The Toba Batak, formerly and now. Translated by Claire Holt. New
York, Modern Indonesia Project, Southeast Asia Program,
Department of Far Eastern Studies, Cornell University.
KOENTJARANINGRAT
1964 Review of Abdurachim: Dasar2 Anthropologi Indonesia... Madjalah
Ilmu-ilmu Sastra Indonesia 2: 83-92.
LEACH, E.R.
1954 Political systems of Highland Burma. London, The
London School of Economics and Political Science 1961 Rethinking
Anthropology. London, University of
London, The Athlone Press.
LOEB, E.M.
1935 Sumatra: its history and people. Wiener Beitrage
zur Kulturgeschichte und Linguistik, 3.
LÖFFLER, LORENTS G.
1964 Prescriptive matrilateral cross-cousin marriage in asymmetric alliance
systems: a fallacy. Southwestern Journal of Anthropology 20: 218-
27
NASOETION, MASDOELHAK HAMONANGAN
1943 De plaats van de vrouw in de Bataksche maatschappij. Utrecht,
Kemink en Zoon.
NEEDHAM, RODNEY
1962 Structure and sentiment: a test case in social
anthropology. Chicago, The University of Chicago Press.
NEUMANN, J.H.
1926 Bijdrage tot de geschiedenis der Karo Batakstammen, I. Bijdragen 82:
1-36.

1927 Bijdrage tot de geschiedenis der Karo-

Batakstammen, II. Bijdragen 83: 162-80.
1930 Poestaka Ginting. Tijdschrift 70: 1-146.
1951 Karo-Bataks - Nederlands Woordenboek. Djakarta ? Lembaga
Kebudajaan Indonesia.
NOTES AND QUERIES ON ANTHROPOLOGY
1954 London, Routledge and Kegan Paul (6th edition)
PELZER, K.J.
1945 Pioneer settlement in the Asiatic Tropics. New York,Institute of
Pacific Relations.
RADCLIFFE-BROWN, A.R.
1950 Introduction. In_ African systems of kinship and marriage, A.R.
Radcliffe-Brown and Daryll Forde (eds.). London, Oxford
University Press.
1952 The mother's brother in South Africa. In_
Structure and function in primitive society, A.R. Radcliffe-Brown. London,
Cohen & West. The paper was originally published in 1924.
RONKEL, P.S. van
1918 Drawidische volksnamen op Sumatra. Bijdragen 74: 263-6.
SMITH, M.G.
1956 On segmentary lineage systems. Journal of the Royal Anthropological
Institute, Vol.86, part 2, p.38-80.
TAMBOEN, P.
1952 Adat-Istiadat Karo. Djakarta, Balai Pustaka
TER HAAR, B.
1948 Adat law in Indonesia. Translated and edited
with an introduction by E. Adamson Hoebel and A. Arthur Schiller. New
York, Institute of Pacific Relations.
TIDEMAN, J.
1935 Review of Loeb, 1935. Mensch en Maatschappij II:
381-2.
1936 Hindoe-invloed in Noordelijk Batakland.
Amsterdam, Uitgaven van het Bataksch Instituut,
No.23.

TOBING, PH. L.
1956 The structure of the Toba-Batak belief in the
High God. Translated by C.A. Eijken and J. Twigt Amsterdam, Jacob van
Campen.
TUGBY, DONALD J.
1958 Social structure and social organization in
Upper Mandailing, Sumatra. Unpublished Ph.D. thesis, The Australian
National University.
VERGOUWEN, J.C.
1933 Het rechtsleven der Toba-Bataks. 1s-Gravenhage,
Martinus Nijhoff.
VOLLENHOVEN, C. van
1931 Het adatrecht van Nederlandsch-Indie, le deel Leiden, E.J. Brill.
WAGNER, F.A.
1959 Indonesia: the art of an island group.
Translated by A.E. Keep. London, Methuen
WESTENBERG, C.J.
1914 Adatrechtspraak en adatrechtpleging der Karo- Batak's. Bijdragen 49:
453-600.
WILKEN, G.A.
1912 De verspreide geschriften van -, verzameld door F.D.E. van
Ossenbruggen. Deel 2. Semarang, G.C.T van Dorp.
YPES, W.K.H.
1932 Bijdrage tot de kennis van de stamverwantschap, de inheemsche
rechtsgemeenschappen en het grondenrecht der Toba- en
Dairibataks. 's Gravenhage, Martinus Nijhoff.