Noted in Hopiland 



B^• K ( > BERT H . L O \\' T 1^ 



NOTHING is more remarkable about 

 the Hopi than the contrast between 

 their mode of life and that of their 

 closest linguistic relatives. There is prob- 

 ably no more telling example of the prin- 

 ciple that language and culture need not go 

 hand in hand. In the Hopi vocabulary the 

 most superficial observer who has traveled 

 among the tribes of Utah, Idaho, or Nevada, 

 finds abundant evidence for the philologist's 

 assertion that the Hopi belong to the same 

 family as the Shoshone, Ute, Paviotso, and 

 Paiute. But in point of arts and customs 

 the resemblance is practically nil. The 

 Plateau Shoshoneans represent the lowliest 

 stage of native North American life, — that 

 of the roving nomad subsisting on small 

 game and roots, using the most primitive 

 brush-covered lodges for shelter, ignorant of 

 all but the crudest pottery, loosely organized 

 from a social point of view, and virtually 

 without the spectacular ritualistic perform- 

 ances that characterize many of the Indian 

 tribes. On the other hand, the Hopi have 

 attained the high-water mark of aboriginal 

 advancement reached north of Mexico. They 

 eke out a living as agriculturists in a desert 

 region where the government farmer is likely 

 to throw up his hands in despair; they in- 

 habit settled villages of terraced sandstone 

 houses; their pottery, ancient and modern, 

 delights the heart of the artist by its wealth 

 of decorative motives; they are organized 

 into a considerable number of elans; and 

 their ceremonialism centers in a calendric 

 series of highly elaborate festivals. 



The principal object of my tAvo visits to 

 the Hopi, in July, 1915, and from the begin- 

 ning of August until the end of September, 

 191»3, was to investigate tlie kinship ter- 

 minology of the tribe. For this purjjose I 

 visited four of the Hopi villages, — Walpi, 

 Sichomovi, Mishongnovi, and Shipaulovi, the 

 first tAvo being situated on the First or East- 

 ern, the others on the Middle mesa. Ethnol- 

 ogists have paid great attention to the 

 methods used by primitive tribes to desig- 

 nate their relatives, and some very far-reach- 

 ing conclusions have been draAvn therefrom 

 as to the marriage customs of early man. 

 But for some reason, except for the Tewa, 



the Southwest had rciiiained jiracticaily un- 

 known from this point of view until in 1915 

 the American Museum despatched one expe- 

 dition under Professor Kroeber to the Zuni, 

 and another under the present Avriter to the 

 Hopi. Investigations of this type had just 

 received a poAverful stimulus by the publica- 

 tion of Dr. W. H. E. Rivers' "Kinship and 

 Social Organization," in which the distin- 

 guished British scholar connected one form 

 of kinship terminology Avith a clan system of 

 social organization, and another Avith a clan- 

 less or "loose" organization. Since the 

 Pueblo Indians have a highly developed clan 

 scheme, it seemed important to use these 

 SoutliAA'estern data to test the theory. The 

 Hopi Avere particularly tempting in this re- 

 spect because of their knoAvn affiliations 

 Avith the clanless Plateau Shoshoneans. Had 

 they by any chance preserved traces of this 

 connection in their nomenclature of rela- 

 tives? Or had the difference in their social 

 conditions blotted out any similarities of the 

 sort .' 



A thorough examination proA-ed that the 

 latter alternative very closely approaches 

 the truth. The Plateau Shoshoneans haA-e 

 some very remarkable features in their rela- 

 tionship terminology. Thus, they generally 

 have quite distinct Avords for the maternal 

 and the paternal grandfather. Again, they 

 have a tendency to use a single word recip- 

 rocally for tAvo distinct relatives of differ- 

 ent generations. For example a boy Avill 

 call his mother's mother by the same term 

 by Avhich she addresses him. Noav these 

 traits are not shared by the Hopi at all. On 

 the other hand, these people have developed 

 a nomenclature that largely reflects their 

 elan organization. By this is meant that in 

 many instances they group together indi- 

 viduals AA-hom we distinguish because those 

 relatives belong to the same clan. For ex- 

 ample, all my father's brothers belong to the 

 same elan as my father, that is, to their 

 mother's (because the Hopi trace descent in 

 the female line) ; and accordingly Ave find 

 that one AAord is used to cover our "father" 

 and "paternal uncle." Since a Hopi must 

 not marry Avithin his oavu clan, my mother's 

 brother, like my mother, can never belong to 



569 



