182 michelson: terms of relationships 



cently Rivers 3 has attempted to overthrow this view, holding 

 that they are sociological phenomena, and consequently that it 

 is entirely possible to infer marriage customs and social organi- 

 zation from these terms. Lowie 4 to a certain extent followed 

 Rivers but has not followed the latter's survival-theories, nor is 

 it likely that many American ethnologists will do so. 5 The pres- 

 ent writer 6 developed Kroeber's linguistic thesis from a different 

 angle, and also made a new point, namely, that terms of rela- 

 tionship are likewise disseminative phenomena. Specific data from 

 Algonquian tribes were given to establish these facts. Lowie, 7 

 some months later, but quite independently, arrived also at this 

 second theoretic position but extended the principle more broadly 

 than the present writer had done. It is not without interest to 

 note that we both assume that Iroquoian and Siouan influence 

 has played a part in Algonquian terms of relationship. Sapir 8 

 briefly touches upon the methodological considerations and con- 

 cludes that thoroughly satisfactory results can not be secured 

 without linguistic analysis of kinship terms; that existing no- 

 menclature may be retained in the face of sociological develop- 

 ments requiring its modification; that the factors governing kin- 

 ship nomenclature are very complicated. Goldenweiser, 9 in his 

 review of Rivers' History of Melanesian Society, says, U A set of 

 terms must always remain a feature of language and as such it is 

 subject to those influences which control linguistic changes as 

 well as to the peculiar spirit of a particular language or linguis- 

 tic stock." The present writer 10 has shown what extraordinary 

 types of marriage we should have to assume existed formerly 

 among the Piegans, were we to believe that marriage customs 



3 Kinship and Social Organization, 1914. The History of Melanesian Society, 

 1914. 



4 Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci., 1: 346-349. 1915. Amer. Anthrop. n. ser., 17: 223- 

 239, 329-340, 588-591. 1915. 



5 Webster (Amer. Anthrop., n. ser., 17: 175-177. 1915) is an isolated 

 exception. 



6 Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci., 2: 297. May, 1916. 



7 Holmes Anniversary Volume, 293. December, 1916. 



8 Amer. Anthrop., n. ser., 18: 327, footnote 1. 1916. 



9 Science, n. ser., 44: 826. 1916. 



10 Holmes Anniversary Volume, 333. 1916. 



