368 BUREAU OF AMERICAN ETHNOLOGY [Bull. 196 



will constantly attach the name of this individual to indicate the 

 aggregation of units they have in mind. 



Western speech designates as an outfit a group of persons who 

 habitually cooperate for certain purposes under recognized leadership, 

 either genuine or symbolic. This fits the observed facts in the Ramah 

 Navaho case very well. While the lines defining many of the outfits 

 are somewhat fluid and amorphous, it is nevertheless impossible 

 without attention to this category to understand not only the com- 

 position of groups v/hich work together on major occasions but also 

 such phenomena as Ramah Navaho "politics" and certain apparently 

 casual patterns of visiting and small economic reciprocities. 



There were (in June 1950) 125 units (135 if one counted the polyg- 

 ynous marriages separately). These units were composed of 39 

 simple nuclear families; 25 nuclear families where one or more of the 

 children did not belong to both spouses; 5 nuclear famihes where one 

 or more children did not belong to either spouse ^^ (including two 

 families where one or more children were grandchildren of the spouses) ; 

 6 nuclear families plus one unmarried adult; 11 units of polygynous 

 marriage; ^° 17 units where a single parent lives with subadult chil- 

 dren; 19 relict units; and 3 isolated individuals.^^ 



Of these units 53 are embraced in 18 extended families. If one 

 used somewhat more flexible but still relevant criteria or considered 

 a period a year or two earher, one could speak of an additional 14 

 extended famihes. There are 5 uxorilocal groups, 2 vii-ilocal, 5 mixed, 

 and 2 relict groups. There are seven clearly recognizable outfits, all 

 but one of which are also geographical groups. 



In part, both the list and this breakdown merely reflect famihar 

 aspects of Navaho culture such as the frequency of children being 

 separated from one or both parents by death and divorce and the propen- 

 sity for repeated exchanges of marriage partners between two famihes 

 or extended families. But some less familiar trends with hints as to 

 the values underlying them also emerge. Both the list and the break- 

 down show that Navaho social organization is based upon the asso- 

 ciation of relatives, but it is equally clear that actual patterns take 

 many forms; matrilineal, patrilineal, and bilateral. Just from the 

 distribution one could guess (and this is confirmed by field notes) 

 that some gi'oupings arise not from standard factors of Navaho cul- 

 ture but individual likes and dislikes and from economic convenience. 

 Some groups contain particularly large aggregations of regrouped 

 couples or of single spouses with their children or of women with 



» All save one are ciises of adoption of relatives. The other instance is that of orphaned siblings of the 

 husband. 



3» Only 3 husbands out of 11 have children by both wives. 



31 Only two of these actually Uve mainly in complete isolation. The third individual lives alone but In 

 a hogan next to hogans occupied by two other units. 



