considered and the cross-cousin marriage briefly mentioned. Dr. Rivers
has demonstrated the close dependence of nomenclature on the latter
practice in Melanesia. Here the custom itself is found in full swing,
and it would be unreasonable to deny that the terminology had its origin
in this usage even in parts of Melanesia where it cannot be observed.
This does not mean that cross-cousin marriage necessarily obtained
throughout the range of distribution of the corresponding terminology
but that the terminology spread from a center where it reflected the
social institution. Thus, in Guadalcanar the cross-cousin marriage still
persists and we find cross-cousins, brothers-in-law and sisters-in-law
comprised under a single appellation. In Anaiteum, cross-cousins of
opposite sex address one another by the terms used for husband and
wife.[63] It seems to me methodologically quite justifiable to interpret
similar features in neighboring islands as having their ultimate origin
in cross-cousin marriage. But the argument fails where similar
connotations of terms occur without evidence of the marriage rule unless
it can be demonstrated that no other cause could have produced the
result. Thus, I must consider unsuccessful Dr. Rivers’ attempt to
deduce, though with qualifications, the former existence of the
institution in question from the system of the Dakota Indians.[64] The
classification of brothers-in-law with cross-cousins might be simply a
reflection of the dual organization, by which these relatives would
fall within the same group; or, to put it differently, if the term
cross-cousin is given the wide significance with which we are familiar
in primitive systems, so as to include members of the opposite moiety
and one’s own generation, a man’s brothers-in-law are necessarily
members of the cross-cousin class. The superiority of the moiety
hypothesis in this instance lies in the fact that the dual organization
occurs among several contiguous and related tribes while the
cross-cousin marriage is extremely rare in North America and its highest
development occurs among remote peoples of the Pacific region. Regarding
special forms of marriage, it is rather important to ascertain whether
the terms used by our authorities are to be interpreted in our own or in
the more inclusive primitive sense. For example, Tylor reduced the
institution of cross-cousin marriage to the principle of exogamous
moieties by assuming the wider significance.[65] As Dr. Rivers points
out,[66] the two rules are not identical if marriage is prescribed with
the own daughter of the own mother’s brother. In that case, the moiety
rule is only a larger framework with which the specific institution is
not incompatible but which does not determine cross-cousin marriage.
Looking at the matter chronologically, I can even conceive the
development of larger social groups from such specific marriage
regulations. If in the absence of an own cross-cousin, a more remote
cousin comes to be regularly substituted, we should have a whole class
of possible mates, of whom the nearest cross-cousin would be only
_primus inter pares_.
It must be understood that while special marriage regulations, like
exogamy, tend to be mirrored in nomenclature, there is no absolute
necessity for this occurrence. As the New Mexican Tewa have exogamous
groups without the Dakota principle, so the Miwok of California have the
cross-cousin marriage with little or no indication of it in
terminology.[67] One factor that must always be considered in this
connection is the time element. A recently acquired custom may not yet
have developed an appropriate nomenclature, while, as Morgan supposed,
the nomenclature may survive after the custom has become obsolete. That
the frequency of marriage according to a certain rule, and the
coexistence of other rules, possibly antagonistic in their effects, must
have an influence, is obvious. As regards the latter point, Mr. Gifford
shows that while marriage with the cross-cousin is not suggested in
Miwok nomenclature, marriage with the wife’s brother’s daughter is
reflected by twelve terms.
Among the Thonga of South Africa several interesting forms of
preferential matrimonial union occur. As among the Miwok, marriage with
the wife’s, younger sisters and wife’s brother’s daughter is considered
peculiarly appropriate, and these affinities are subsumed under a common
caption. Levirate extends only to the elder brother’s, not to the
younger brother’s, wife, and quite consistently these affinities are
distinguished by distinct words. A man may inherit his maternal uncle’s
wife and therefore classes her with the wife. On the other hand, logic
does not hold sway undisputedly. A man calls cross-cousins by the same
term as parallel cousins and brothers, yet it is possible for a man to
inherit his parallel cousin’s, but not his cross-cousin’s (father’s
sister’s son’s), wife. The explanation given by Junod seems quite
satisfactory from a comparative point of view. My cross-cousin cannot
belong to my gens, my parallel cousin must belong to it.[68] Since the
Thonga usually distinguish marriage potentialities with considerable
nicety, we may reasonably infer that the present terminology for cousins
is a recent innovation, which conclusion once more indicates the
relatively late development of Hawaiian features.
A systematic comparison of the effect of definite forms of marriage on
nomenclature, in different parts of the world is highly desirable. When
we shall have examined how such an institution as the inheritance of a
maternal uncle’s wife affects the systems of the Tlingit of northwestern
America, of the Banks Islands in Melanesia, and the Thonga of South
Africa, and know the action of whatever coexisting institutions may
occur, we shall have gained considerably more insight into a very
suggestive problem. It is fairly clear that a form of marriage does not
determine nomenclature univocally, as the facts relating to the levirate
indicate. To ascertain in how far parallelism actually occurs, is a
matter of great moment.
_Conclusion._ The question with which this chapter opens has now
received an answer. Terms of relationship form a proper topic of
investigation for the ethnologist, first because they are often directly
correlated with cultural phenomena, such as social usages regulating
marriage; secondly, because the features of kinship nomenclature are an
index of tribal relationship. Any particular system is not a unified
logical whole but a complex product of internal development and foreign
connections. Accordingly, its features cannot be understood by
themselves any more than other cultural phenomena, but only in
association with concomitant traits of the native culture and in the
light of a comparative survey of like features among neighboring tribes
and ultimately throughout the world. By utilizing our ethnographical
knowledge in applying the method of variation it is possible to
ascertain, at least to a considerable extent, the causes, whether
primary or secondary, that have shaped a given system.
When, for example, we endeavor to explain the system of the Hopi, we can
start with the fact that their speech constitutes them a member of the
Shoshonean family, _i.e._, we can begin by comparing Hopi nomenclature
with that of the Paiute, Paviotso, Ute and Shoshone. One fact that
strikes us here is the great difference in the actual vocables employed
by the Hopi from those of their congeners, an observation which by no
means extends to all of their language. Morgan held the view that
kinship words were the most persistent elements of speech, but however
this rule may work in other stocks, such as the Athabaskan, it certainly
does not obtain among the Shoshoneans, nor, I may add, within the Siouan
family, where even such closely related languages as Crow and Hidatsa
reveal far greater differences in the lexicon of relationships than
might be expected from other vocables. It is, however, in the
classification of kin that the distinctiveness of the Hopi seems most
remarkable. Their system is not characterized by the prominent features
of the Plateau Shoshonean terminologies, such as reciprocity and the
separation of paternal from maternal grandparents. On the other hand,
they employ the Dakota principle with the Hidatsa variation. That
variant occurs, so far as we now know, only among peoples historically
quite unrelated to the Hopi so that neither genetic connection nor
dissemination accounts for the similarity. On the other hand, all the
tribes having this feature share exogamous groups with maternal descent.
Such clans are characteristic of the Hopi also, but are lacking among
the other Shoshoneans. We infer from this that the Hidatsa variant among
the Hopi is functionally connected with their clan system. If the
neighboring Zuñi do not share this characteristic, a possible
explanation may be found in the relative weakness of the Zuñi clan
concept, as recently expounded by Professor Kroeber, when contrasted
with its dominance in the social life of the Hopi. In other features the
intimate cultural contact between the Zuñi and Hopi is emphatically
apparent. Probably for no other tribes is there evidence for such
exaggerated reliance on teknonymy, while a certain looseness in the use
of terms common to both seems to be a general Southwestern trait. The
Hopi system thus reflects both the social fabric of the tribe and its
historical relations,--the ancient ones reduced to a few lexical
resemblances, while the more complex tribal organization and recent
cultural affiliations with the Southwest, and particularly with the
Zuñi, stand out in bold relief.
A strictly similar inquiry might be made into the system of the Crow.
Here the almost complete coincidence of certain very unusual features
with Hidatsa ones bears eloquent testimony to the exceptionally close
genetic relationship of the two tribes. Thus, a wife who has been
married before is distinguished by a specific word, and spouses
generally refer to each other not by a specific term, which seems
restricted to non-vocative usage, but by a demonstrative expression. Not
only is there a confusion of generations according to the Hidatsa
variant, but the mother’s brother is classed with the elder brother and
so is the mother’s mother’s brother. The last-mentioned features are
partly found among the Mandan. All three tribes differ from the other
Siouans, and indeed from all other Plains Indians in having matrilineal
descent. Since this is likewise the rule among genetically unconnected
peoples sharing the Hidatsa variant, we regard the latter as
functionally connected with the clan organization. But there are other
traits in which the terminology of the Crow differs from that of their
nearest congeners, and here we must systematically consider the possible
effect of all such peoples as the Oglala, or Blackfoot, with whom they
have come into contact. Such divergence may be merely the effect of
internal readjustment. Thus, the Crow classification of the father’s
sister’s husband with the father admits of a plausible interpretation as
the result of another peculiarity--the classing of the father’s sister
with the mother in direct address. Instead of having two deviations from
the Hidatsa norm, we should thus have at bottom only one.
It is clear that a far more intensive investigation of kinship
terminologies must take the place of what has hitherto been attempted.
Precisely the so-called minor peculiarities of a system are important
historically because they are the differential indications of cultural
contact with definite tribes. The phonetic inadequacy of Morgan’s
schedules, which has been brought to light by Dr. Michelson and Mr.
Spier,[69] requires a reëxamination of the entire field covered. Still
more important is the thorough-going determination of the innumerable
systems, both in and outside of America, not touched upon by Morgan at
all. Fortunately the work of Dr. Rivers, Mr. A. R. Brown and Mr. A. M.
Hocart in England, of Dr. R. Thurnwald in Germany, of Dr. J. R. Swanton,
Mr. Leslie Spier and Mr. E. W. Gifford in America bids fair to reduce
our ignorance of the facts. With our lamentable absence of knowledge on
some of the most essential points it would be rash indeed to claim for
the present sketch a more than preliminary value. I am content with
calling attention to the tremendous ethnological significance of kinship
terminologies, with combating premature confidence in generalizations
based on sheer ignorance, and above all with suggesting that the most
rigorous logical formulation of problems is possible in this too long
neglected domain of the science of culture.
REFERENCES
I
[1] WISSLER, CLARK. Psychological and Historical
Interpretation for Culture, _Science_, N. S. vol. 43, pp. 193-201,
1916. HOCART, A.M. Psychology and Sociology, _Folk-Lore_,
1915, pp. 115-137. KROEBER, A. L. Eighteen Professions,
_American Anthropologist_, N. S. vol. 17, pp. 283-288, 1915.
LOWIE, ROBERT H. Psychology and Sociology, _American Journal
of Sociology_, 1915, pp. 217-229.
[2] RADLOFF, WILHELM. Aus Sibirien. Lose Blätter aus meinem
Tagebuche. 2 vols. Leipzig, 1893, vol. 2, p. 16 f.
[3] JOCHELSON, WALDEMAR. The Yukaghir and Yukaghirized
Tungus, _Memoirs, American Museum of Natural History_, vol. 13, part
1, Leiden and New York, 1910, pp. 30-38. CZAPLICKA, M. A.
Aboriginal Siberia. A Study in Social Anthropology. Oxford, 1914, pp.
307-325.
II
[1] THORNDIKE, EDWARD L. Mental Work and Fatigue and
Individual Differences and their Causes. New York, 1914, pp. 206-224.
[2] MAXIMILIAN, PRINCE OF WIED. Reise in das innere
Nord-Amerika in den Jahren 1832 bis 1834. Coblenz, 1841, vol. 2, p.
134.
[3] LAUFER, BERTHOLD. Some Fundamental Ideas of Chinese
Culture, _Journal of Race Development_, vol. 5, 1914, pp. 160-174.
[4] LAUFER, BERTHOLD. Zur Geschichte der Brille,
_Mitteilungen zur Geschichte der Medizin und der Naturwissenschaften_,
vol. 6, 1907, pp. 379-385.
[5] THORNDIKE. _op. cit._, p. 223.
[6] LAUFER, BERTHOLD. Skizze der mongolischen Literatur,
_Extrait de la Revue Orientale_, 1907, pp. 165-261, esp. p. 232 f.
[7] LAUFER. _Ibid._, pp. 183-187.
[8] LAUFER, BERTHOLD. Skizze der manjurischen Literatur,
_Extrait de la Revue Orientale_, 1908, pp. 1-53, esp. pp. 12 f., 17
f. GILES, H. A. The Civilization of China, _Home University
Library_, London, 1911, p. 209.
[9] HELL, J. Die Kultur der Araber, Leipzig, 1909, pp. 68,
93, 97, 83 f., 89, 99, 100.
[10] GILES. _Op. cit._, p. 119.
III
[1] WISSLER, CLARK. The Psychological Aspects of the
Culture-Environment Relation, _American Anthropologist_, N. S., vol.
14, 1912, pp. 217-225. WISSLER, CLARK. The Relation of
Culture to Environment from the Standpoint of Invention, _Popular
Science Monthly_, 1913, pp. 164-168. BOAS, FRANZ. The Mind of
Primitive Man. New York, 1911, pp. 160-164. GOLDENWEISER, A.
A. Culture and Environment, _American Journal of Sociology_, 1916, pp.
628-633.
[2] OBERMAIER, HUGO. Der Mensch der Vorzeit. Berlin, no date,
p. 238 f.
[3] BOGORAS, WALDEMAR. The Chukchee--Material Culture,
_Memoirs, American Museum of Natural History_, vol. 11, part 1, Leiden
and New York, 1904, p. 7, _et seq._
[4] RADLOFF, WILHELM. Aus Sibirien, vol. 1, p. 444 f.
[5] LAUFER, BERTHOLD. _Journal of Race Development_, vol. 5,
pp. 167-170.
[6] MORICE, A. G. The Canadian Dénés, _Annual Archæological
Report_, 1905, _Appendix, Report, Minister of Education_, Toronto,
1906, pp. 187-219, 197 f.
[7] BOAS, FRANZ. The Eskimo of Baffin Land and Hudson Bay,
_Bulletin, American Museum of Natural History_, vol. 17, 1907, pp. 75,
357.
[8] FORRER, ROBERT. Urgeschichte des Europäers von der
Menschwerdung zum Anbruch der Geschichte, Stuttgart, 1908, p. 197.
[9] BOAS, FRANZ. Mind of Primitive Man, p. 162.
BOGORAS, The Chukchee, p. 177.
[10] RIVERS, W. H. R. The Disappearance of Useful Arts,
_Festskrift tillägnad Edvard Westermarck_, 1912, pp. 109-130.
[11] NELSON, N. C. Chronology of the Tano Ruins, New Mexico,
_American Anthropologist_, N. S., vol. 18, 1916, pp. 159-180.
[12] JOCHELSON, WALDEMAR. Material Culture and Social
Organization of the Koryak, _Memoirs, American Museum of Natural
History_, vol. 10, part 2, 1908, p. 405.
[13] WISSLER, CLARK. Aboriginal Maize Culture as a Typical
Culture-Complex, _American Journal of Sociology_, 1916, pp. 656-661.
IV
[1] RIVERS, W. H. R. Kinship and Social Organization, London,
1914, p. 92.
[2] TYLOR, EDWARD B. Primitive Culture; Researches into the
Development of Mythology, Philosophy, Religion, Languages, Art and
Custom. 2 vols., New York, 1889, vol. 1, p. 53.
[3] HATT, GUDMUND. Moccasins and their Relation to Arctic
Foot-Wear, _Memoirs, American Anthropological Association_, vol. 3,
no. 3, 1916, p. 246.
[4] WISSLER, CLARK. Aboriginal Maize Culture, etc., pp.
656-661.
[5] BOAS, FRANZ. Mind of Primitive Man, p. 167.
[6] MONTELIUS, O. Der Handel in der Vorzeit, _Praehistorische
Zeitschrift_, II, 1910, pp. 249-291; _Id._, A Guide to the National
Historical Museum, Stockholm.
[7] FORRER, ROBERT. Urgeschichte des Europäers, etc., p. 197.
[8] LAUFER, BERTHOLD. Chinese Pottery of the Han Dynasty.
Leiden, 1909, pp. 212-236.
[9] OBERMAIER, HUGO. Der Mensch der Vorzeit, p. 337.
[10] BOAS, FRANZ. Mind of Primitive Man, p. 182 _et seq._
[11] WISSLER, CLARK. Material Cultures of the North American
Indians, _American Anthropologist_, N. S. vol. 16, 1914, pp. 447-505,
pp. 487-489.
[12] CZEKANOWSKI, JAN. Objektive Kriterien in der Ethnologie,
_Korrespondenzblatt der Deutschen Gesellschaft fur Anthropologie,
Ethnologie und Urgeschichte_, 1911, XLII, pp. 71-75.
[13] TYLOR, E. B. On a Method of Investigating the
Development of Institutions; applied to Laws of Marriage and Descent,
_Journal of the Anthropological Institute_, vol. 18, 1889, pp.
245-272, esp. p. 264.
V
[1] MORGAN, LEWIS H. Systems of Consanguinity and Affinity,
_Smithsonian Contributions to Knowledge_, vol. 17, Washington, 1871,
pp. 463 _et seq._, 508.
[2] SKINNER, ALANSON. Social Life and Ceremonial Bundles of
the Menomini Indians, _Anthropological Papers, American Museum of
Natural History_, vol. 13, part 1, 1913, p. 40. MORGAN, LEWIS
H. Systems (Winnebago and Dakota), p. 181.
[3] MERKER, M. Die Masai, Ethnographische Monographie eines
ostafrikanischen Semitenvolkes, Berlin, 1904, pp. 41-43.
[4] ROSCOE, JOHN. The Baganda, an Account of their Native
Customs and Beliefs, London, 1911, pp. 130-32.
[5] RIVERS, W. H. R. Kin, Kinship, _Hastings’ Encyclopædia of
Religion and Ethics_.
[6] MORGAN, LEWIS H. Systems, p. 12.
[7] RIVERS, W. H. R. The History of Melanesian Society, 2
vols., Cambridge, 1914, vol. 1, p. 375 _et seq._
[8] MORGAN, LEWIS H. Systems, pp. 457-461. ERDLAND, P.
A. Die Marshall-Insulaner; Leben und Sitte, Sinn und Religion
eines Sudsee-Volkes. Münster in W., 1914, p. 114 f.
[9] RIVERS, W. H. R. Kin, Kinship.
[10] MORGAN, LEWIS H. Systems, pp. 463-466.
[11] ROSCOE, JOHN. The Baganda, pp. 126-132. SCHINZ.
Deutsch-Sudwest-Afrika, Oldenburg, 1891, pp. 175-78. JUNOD, HENRI
A. The Life of a South African Tribe. Neuchâtel, 1912-1913, vol.
1, pp. 217-237.
[12] JUNOD, HENRI A. _Op. cit._, pp. 237 f, 253-257.
[13] ELLIS, A. B. The Yoruba-speaking Peoples of the Slave
Coast of West Africa. London, 1894, pp. 177-82.
[14] THOMAS, NORTHCOTE W. Law and Custom of the Timne and
other Tribes, Anthropological Report on Sierra Leone, London, 1916,
p. 103 _et seq._, and tables.
[15] MORGAN, LEWIS H. Systems, p. 167 _et seq._, also
author’s notes.
[16] CUNOW, H. Zur Urgeschichte der Ehe und Familie
(_Ergänzungshefte zur Neuen Zeit_, Stuttgart, 1912), p. 65.
[17] KROEBER, A. L. Classificatory Systems of Relationship,
_Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and
Ireland_, 1909, pp. 77-84.
[18] MORGAN, LEWIS H. Systems, pp. 167-169, 205.
[19] ZIOCK, H. Dictionary of the English and Miskito
Language. Herrnhut, Saxony, 1894.
[20] MORGAN, LEWIS H. Systems, p. 265.
[21] MARTIUS, CARL FRIEDRICH PHIL. V. Beiträge zur
Ethnographie und Sprachenkunde Amerikas, zumal Brasiliens. Leipzig,
1867, vol. 1, pp. 353-355.
[22] KOCH-GRÜNBERG, THEODOR. Aruak-Sprachen
Nordwestbrasiliens und der angrenzenden Gebiete, _Mitteilungen der
Anthropologischen Gesellschaft in Wien_, XLI, 1911.
[23] BURGER, OTTO. Acht Lehr-und Wanderjahre in Chile.
Leipzig, 1909, p. 86.
[24] MEDINA, JOSÉ TORIBIO. Los Aborijenes de Chile. Santiago,
1882, p. 280 f.
[25] VON DEN STEINEN, KARL. Diccionario Sipibo. Berlin, 1904.
[26] MORGAN, LEWIS H. Systems, pp. 570-572.
[27] RIVERS, W. H. R. The History of Melanesian Society, vol.
1, pp. 266-271.
[28] RIVERS, W. H. R. _Ibid._, vol. 1, p. 244.
[29] ZAHN IN NEUHAUSS, R. Deutsch-Neu-Guinea. 3 vols.,
Berlin, 1911, vol. 3, p. 304 f.
[30] SPENCER, BALDWIN, and GILLEN, F. J.
The Native Tribes of Central Australia. London, 1899, p. 66.
[31] CZAPLICKA, M. A. Aboriginal Siberia, p. 98 f. VON
SCHRENCK, L. Reisen und Forschungen im Amur-Lande. St.
Petersburg, 1891, vol. 3, p. 236.
[32] MORGAN, LEWIS H. Systems, pp. 387, 508.
[33] RIVERS, W. H. R. The Todas. London, 1906, pp. 483-494.
[34] SELIGMANN, C. G. and B. Z. The Veddas. Cambridge, 1911,
p. 64.
[35] MORGAN, LEWIS H. League of the Ho-dé-no-sau-nee or
Iroquois. New York, 1904, Book 1, Chap. 4.
[36] SWANTON, JOHN R. Social Conditions, Beliefs, and
Linguistic Relationships of the Tlingit Indians, _Twenty-sixth Annual
Report, Bureau of American Ethnology_, Washington, 1908, p. 424.
[37] CZAPLICKA, M. A. Aboriginal Siberia, p. 60.
[38] SWANTON, JOHN R. Significance of the Terms for Brother
and Sister among Primitive Peoples, _Journal of the Washington Academy
of Sciences_, 1917, pp. 31-35.
[39] MORGAN, LEWIS H. Systems, p. 476.
[40] TYLOR, E. B. Journal of the Anthropological Institute,
vol. 18, 1889, p. 262 f.
[41] RIVERS, W. H. R. Kinship and Social Organization, p. 73.
[42] LOWIE, ROBERT H. Exogamy and the Classificatory Systems
of Relationship, _American Anthropologist_, N. S., vol. 17, 1915, pp.
223-239.
[43] BOAS, FRANZ. Tsimshian Mythology, _Thirty-first Annual
Report, Bureau of American Ethnology_, Washington, 1916, pp. 489-495.
[44] SAPIR, EDWARD. Terms of Relationship and the Levirate,
_American Anthropologist_, N. S., vol. 18, 1916, pp. 327-337.
[45] TYLOR, E. B. Journal of the Anthropological Institute,
vol. 18, 1889, p. 253.
[46] MORGAN, LEWIS H. Systems, p. 478 f.
[47] CZAPLICKA, M. A. Aboriginal Siberia, p. 99.
[48] KROEBER, A. L. Zuñi Kin and Clan, _Anthropological
Papers, American Museum of Natural History_, vol. 18, 1917, p. 90.
[49] DORSEY, J. O. Omaha Sociology, _Third Annual Report,
Bureau of American Ethnology_, Washington, 1884, p. 254. MORGAN,
LEWIS H. _Systems_, p. 335 f.
[50] KROEBER, A. L. Zuñi Kin and Clan, p. 86 f.
[51] GIFFORD, E. W. Miwok Moieties, _University of California
Publications in American Archæology and Ethnology_, vol. 12, no. 4,
Berkeley, 1916, p. 187 f.
[52] CUNOW, H. Die Verwandtschafts-Organisationen der
Australneger, Stuttgart, 1894, p. 127 f.
[53] RIVERS, W. H. R. Kinship, _Reports, Cambridge
Anthropological Expedition to Torres Straits_, vol. 2, p. 98.
[54] STERNBERG, LEO. The Turano-Ganowanian System and the
Nations of Northeast Asia, _Proceedings, International Congress of
Americanists_, 18th session, 1912, pp. 319-333.
[55] RIVERS, W. H. R. On the Origin of the Classificatory
System of Relationships, _Anthropological Essays presented to Edward
Burnett Tylor_, pp. 309-323.
[56] RIVERS, W. H. R. The History of Melanesian Society, vol.
I, p. 8 f.
[57] MORGAN, LEWIS H. Systems, p. 247.
[58] GIFFORD, E. W. Tübatülabal and Kawaiisu Kinship Terms,
_University of California Publications in American Archæology and
Ethnology_, vol. 12, no. 6, Berkeley, 1917, p. 229.
[59] SWANTON, JOHN R. Terms of Relationship in Timucua,
_Holmes Anniversary Volume_, Washington, 1916, pp. 451-463.
[60] TYLOR, E. B. Journal of the Anthropological Institute,
vol. 18, 1889, p. 248.
[61] RIVERS, W. H. R. The History of Melanesian Society, vol.
2, p. 336.
[62] KROEBER, A. L. Zuñi Kin and Clan, p. 72. LOWIE,
ROBERT H. Field Notes. KRAUSE, A. Die Tlinkit Indianer,
Ergebnisse einer Reise nach der Nord-westküste von Amerika und der
Beringstrasse im Auftrage der Bremer Geographischen Gesellschaft,
1880-1881, Jena, 1885, p. 217.
[63] RIVERS, W. H. R. The History of Melanesian Society, vol.
2, p. 27.
[64] RIVERS, W. H. R. Kinship and Social Organization, pp.
49-52.
[65] TYLOR, E. B. Journal of the Anthropological Institute,
vol. 18, 1889, p. 264.
[66] RIVERS, W. H. R. History of Melanesian Society, vol. 2,
p. 122.
[67] GIFFORD, E. W. Miwok Moieties, p. 190.
[68] JUNOD, HENRI A. The Life of a South African Tribe, vol.
1, pp. 247-250.
[69] MICHELSON, TRUMAN. Notes on the Piegan System of
Consanguinity, _Holmes Anniversary Volume_, Washington, 1916, pp.
320-333. SPIER, LESLIE, Blackfoot Relationship Terms,
_American Anthropologist_, N. S. vol. 17, 1915, pp. 603-607.