REFERENCES

Special Forms of Marriage and Social Customs.There can be little doubt that a well-established marriage rule often finds expression in nomenclature. Even the exogamous principle can be brought under this head since it expresses the potential matrimonial status of members of the community. In a dual organization my ‘father’ is one who potentially, if not actually, is a mate of women of my mother’s group, while a ‘mother’s brother’ is one who can under no condition occupy that status.

Of the specific forms of marriage the levirate has already been considered and the cross-cousin marriage briefly mentioned. Dr. Rivers has demonstrated the close dependence of nomenclature on the latter practice in Melanesia. Herethe 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-v]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-v]The classification of brothers-in-law with cross-cousins might be simply a reflection of the dual organization, bywhich 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-v]As Dr. Rivers points out,[66-v]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 thedevelopment 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 onlyprimus 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-v]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-v]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 understoodby 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 relationshipsthan 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 othertribes 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 fromall 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-v]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.

[1-i]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-i]Radloff, Wilhelm.Aus Sibirien. Lose Blätter aus meinem Tagebuche. 2 vols. Leipzig, 1893, vol. 2, p. 16 f.

[3-i]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.

[1-ii]Thorndike, Edward L.Mental Work and Fatigue and Individual Differences and their Causes. New York, 1914, pp. 206-224.

[2-ii]Maximilian, Prince of Wied.Reise in das innere Nord-Amerika in den Jahren 1832 bis 1834. Coblenz, 1841, vol. 2, p. 134.

[3-ii]Laufer, Berthold.Some Fundamental Ideas of Chinese Culture,Journal of Race Development, vol. 5, 1914, pp. 160-174.

[4-ii]Laufer, Berthold.Zur Geschichte der Brille,Mitteilungen zur Geschichte der Medizin und der Naturwissenschaften, vol. 6, 1907, pp. 379-385.

[5-ii]Thorndike.op. cit., p. 223.

[6-ii]Laufer, Berthold.Skizze der mongolischen Literatur,Extrait de la Revue Orientale, 1907, pp. 165-261, esp. p. 232 f.

[7-ii]Laufer.Ibid., pp. 183-187.

[8-ii]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-ii]Hell, J. Die Kultur der Araber, Leipzig, 1909, pp. 68, 93, 97, 83 f., 89, 99, 100.

[10-ii]Giles.Op. cit., p. 119.

[1-iii]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-iii]Obermaier, Hugo.Der Mensch der Vorzeit. Berlin, no date, p. 238 f.

[3-iii]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-iii]Radloff, Wilhelm.Aus Sibirien, vol. 1, p. 444 f.

[5-iii]Laufer, Berthold.Journal of Race Development, vol. 5, pp. 167-170.

[6-iii]Morice, A. G. The Canadian Dénés,Annual Archæological Report, 1905,Appendix, Report, Minister of Education, Toronto, 1906, pp. 187-219, 197 f.

[7-iii]Boas, Franz.The Eskimo of Baffin Land and Hudson Bay,Bulletin, American Museum of Natural History, vol. 17, 1907, pp. 75, 357.

[8-iii]Forrer, Robert.Urgeschichte des Europäers von der Menschwerdung zum Anbruch der Geschichte, Stuttgart, 1908, p. 197.

[9-iii]Boas, Franz.Mind of Primitive Man, p. 162.Bogoras, The Chukchee, p. 177.

[10-iii]Rivers, W. H. R. The Disappearance of Useful Arts,Festskrift tillägnad Edvard Westermarck, 1912, pp. 109-130.

[11-iii]Nelson, N. C. Chronology of the Tano Ruins, New Mexico,American Anthropologist, N. S., vol. 18, 1916, pp. 159-180.

[12-iii]Jochelson, Waldemar.Material Culture and Social Organization of the Koryak,Memoirs, American Museum of Natural History, vol. 10, part 2, 1908, p. 405.

[13-iii]Wissler, Clark.Aboriginal Maize Culture as a Typical Culture-Complex,American Journal of Sociology, 1916, pp. 656-661.

[1-iv]Rivers, W. H. R. Kinship and Social Organization, London, 1914, p. 92.

[2-iv]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-iv]Hatt, Gudmund.Moccasins and their Relation to Arctic Foot-Wear,Memoirs, American Anthropological Association, vol. 3, no. 3, 1916, p. 246.

[4-iv]Wissler, Clark.Aboriginal Maize Culture, etc., pp. 656-661.

[5-iv]Boas, Franz.Mind of Primitive Man, p. 167.

[6-iv]Montelius, O. Der Handel in der Vorzeit,Praehistorische Zeitschrift, II, 1910, pp. 249-291;Id., A Guide to the National Historical Museum, Stockholm.

[7-iv]Forrer, Robert.Urgeschichte des Europäers, etc., p. 197.

[8-iv]Laufer, Berthold.Chinese Pottery of the Han Dynasty. Leiden, 1909, pp. 212-236.

[9-iv]Obermaier, Hugo.Der Mensch der Vorzeit, p. 337.

[10-iv]Boas, Franz.Mind of Primitive Man, p. 182et seq.

[11-iv]Wissler, Clark.Material Cultures of the North American Indians,American Anthropologist, N. S. vol. 16, 1914, pp. 447-505, pp. 487-489.

[12-iv]Czekanowski, Jan.Objektive Kriterien in der Ethnologie,Korrespondenzblatt der Deutschen Gesellschaft fur Anthropologie, Ethnologie und Urgeschichte, 1911,XLII, pp. 71-75.

[13-iv]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.

[1-v]Morgan, Lewis H.Systems of Consanguinity and Affinity,Smithsonian Contributions to Knowledge, vol. 17, Washington, 1871, pp. 463et seq., 508.

[2-v]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-v]Merker, M. Die Masai, Ethnographische Monographie eines ostafrikanischen Semitenvolkes, Berlin, 1904, pp. 41-43.

[4-v]Roscoe, John.The Baganda, an Account of their Native Customs and Beliefs, London, 1911, pp. 130-32.

[5-v]Rivers, W. H. R. Kin, Kinship,Hastings’ Encyclopædia of Religion and Ethics.

[6-v]Morgan, Lewis H.Systems, p. 12.

[7-v]Rivers, W. H. R. The History of Melanesian Society, 2 vols., Cambridge, 1914, vol. 1, p. 375et seq.

[8-v]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-v]Rivers, W. H. R. Kin, Kinship.

[10-v]Morgan, Lewis H.Systems, pp. 463-466.

[11-v]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-v]Junod, Henri A.Op. cit., pp. 237 f, 253-257.

[13-v]Ellis, A. B. The Yoruba-speaking Peoples of the Slave Coast of West Africa. London, 1894, pp. 177-82.

[14-v]Thomas, Northcote W.Law and Custom of the Timne and other Tribes, Anthropological Report onSierra Leone, London, 1916, p. 103et seq., and tables.

[15-v]Morgan, Lewis H.Systems, p. 167et seq., also author’s notes.

[16-v]Cunow, H. Zur Urgeschichte der Ehe und Familie (Ergänzungshefte zur Neuen Zeit, Stuttgart, 1912), p. 65.

[17-v]Kroeber, A. L. Classificatory Systems of Relationship,Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland, 1909, pp. 77-84.

[18-v]Morgan, Lewis H.Systems, pp. 167-169, 205.

[19-v]Ziock, H. Dictionary of the English and Miskito Language. Herrnhut, Saxony, 1894.

[20-v]Morgan, Lewis H.Systems, p. 265.

[21-v]Martius, Carl Friedrich Phil. v.Beiträge zur Ethnographie und Sprachenkunde Amerikas, zumal Brasiliens. Leipzig, 1867, vol. 1, pp. 353-355.

[22-v]Koch-Grünberg, Theodor.Aruak-Sprachen Nordwestbrasiliens und der angrenzenden Gebiete,Mitteilungen der Anthropologischen Gesellschaft in Wien,XLI, 1911.

[23-v]Burger, Otto.Acht Lehr-und Wanderjahre in Chile. Leipzig, 1909, p. 86.

[24-v]Medina, José Toribio.Los Aborijenes de Chile. Santiago, 1882, p. 280 f.

[25-v]Von den Steinen, Karl.Diccionario Sipibo. Berlin, 1904.

[26-v]Morgan, Lewis H.Systems, pp. 570-572.

[27-v]Rivers, W. H. R. The History of Melanesian Society, vol. 1, pp. 266-271.

[28-v]Rivers, W. H. R.Ibid., vol. 1, p. 244.

[29-v]Zahn in Neuhauss, R. Deutsch-Neu-Guinea. 3 vols., Berlin, 1911, vol. 3, p. 304 f.

[30-v]Spencer,Baldwin, andGillen, F. J. The Native Tribes of Central Australia. London, 1899, p. 66.

[31-v]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-v]Morgan, LewisH. Systems, pp. 387, 508.

[33-v]Rivers, W. H. R. The Todas. London, 1906, pp. 483-494.

[34-v]Seligmann, C. G. and B. Z. The Veddas. Cambridge, 1911, p. 64.

[35-v]Morgan, LewisH. League of the Ho-dé-no-sau-nee or Iroquois. New York, 1904, Book 1, Chap. 4.

[36-v]Swanton, JohnR. Social Conditions, Beliefs, and Linguistic Relationships of the Tlingit Indians,Twenty-sixth Annual Report, Bureau of American Ethnology, Washington, 1908, p. 424.

[37-v]Czaplicka, M. A. Aboriginal Siberia, p. 60.

[38-v]Swanton, JohnR. Significance of the Terms for Brother and Sister among Primitive Peoples,Journal of the Washington Academy of Sciences, 1917, pp. 31-35.

[39-v]Morgan, LewisH. Systems, p. 476.

[40-v]Tylor, E. B. Journal of the Anthropological Institute, vol. 18, 1889, p. 262 f.

[41-v]Rivers, W. H. R. Kinship and Social Organization, p. 73.

[42-v]Lowie, RobertH. Exogamy and the Classificatory Systems of Relationship,American Anthropologist, N. S., vol. 17, 1915, pp. 223-239.

[43-v]Boas, Franz.Tsimshian Mythology,Thirty-first Annual Report, Bureau of American Ethnology, Washington, 1916, pp. 489-495.

[44-v]Sapir, Edward.Terms of Relationship and the Levirate,American Anthropologist, N. S., vol. 18, 1916, pp. 327-337.

[45-v]Tylor, E. B. Journal of the Anthropological Institute, vol. 18, 1889, p. 253.

[46-v]Morgan, Lewis H.Systems, p. 478 f.

[47-v]Czaplicka, M. A. Aboriginal Siberia, p. 99.

[48-v]Kroeber, A. L. Zuñi Kin and Clan,Anthropological Papers, American Museum of Natural History, vol. 18, 1917, p. 90.

Back to Index Next