and Georges Duby. On the other hand, Nicholas Allen concludes that the tripartite division may be an artefact and a selection effect, rather than an organising principle that was used in the societies themselves. Benjamin W. Fortson reports a sense that Dumézil blurred the lines between the three functions and the examples that he gave often had contradictory characteristics, which had caused his detractors to reject his categories as nonexistent. John Brough surmises that societal divisions are common outside Indo-European societies as well and so the hypothesis has only limited utility in illuminating prehistoric Indo-European society. Cristiano Grottanelli states that while Dumézilian trifunctionalism may be seen in modern and medieval contexts, its projection onto earlier cultures is mistaken. Belier is strongly critical. The hypothesis has been criticised by the historians Carlo Ginzburg, Arnaldo Momigliano and Bruce Lincoln as being based on Dumézil's sympathies with the political right. Guy Stroumsa sees those criticisms as unfounded. See also Arthashastra Caste Comparative mythology Estates of the realm Mythography Mandala (political model) Proto-Indo-European religion Proto-Indo-European society Social class Trinity Triple deity Notes References Sources Anthropology Indo-European culture Mythological archetypes Comparative mythology Social classes Sociological theories 1929 introductions