White] THE PUEBLO OF SIA, NEW MEXICO 193 
supply a term for mother’s mother’s brother. Three of the above 
informants gave terms for sister’s daughter’s daughter that were con- 
sistent with those they had given for sister’s daughter’s son: mak 
with moti, koye with dyum, and Bana with momo. But one inform- 
ant who gave dyum (brother) for sister’s daughter’s son gave paiya 
(mother) for her brother; this would seem to be anerror. “Brother” 
and “‘sister” would be the terms used in the Crow system. 
As in the case of Santa Ana (White, 1942 a, p. 159) and Acoma 
(Eggan, 1950, pp. 237-238; Mickey, 1956), there appears definitely to 
be a trend in Sia away from a terminology of the Crow type to one of 
a bilateral system. Mother’s brother was uniformly called sanawi, 
and some informants called his children moti (son) and ma-k (daugh- 
ter), which is the Crow pattern, but others called them dyum (brother) 
and koye (sister). Turning to the patrilineal side, all male informants 
called father’s sister naiya (mother), and all called her son ‘‘brother’’ 
(dyum). With regard to father’s sister’s daughter, however, I got 
diversity. One informant called her naiya (mother) in 1941 and again 
in 1952; but on one occasion he called her sawé’a. ‘Two other inform- 
ants called her “sister” (koye). And a fourth called her teitci. Call- 
ing father’s sister’s daughter by the same term with which father’s 
sister is designated (naiya) is consistent with Crow terminology, 
whereas calling her (koye) expresses bilaterality. But the informant 
who called father’s sister’s daughter “mother” called father’s sister’s 
son ‘‘brother,’’ which is inconsistent, both with Crow terminology and 
with his own term for father’s sister’s daughter. 
All informants were alike in designating certain relatives sAnawi 
(R), figure 22, with the exception of the son of father’s sister’s daugh- 
ter’s son. But everyone who called a man sAnawi called his children 
either ‘‘son” and “daughter” or “brother” and “sister.”’ The son of 
a “sister” (koye) was always sanawi; the daughter, saw4’a. 
I found two patterns with regard to great grandparents: some in- 
formants designated them with grandparent terms (momo and Baza), 
while others called them “father” and “mother”. The latter would 
give us an alternation of terms in the ascending generations: a man’s 
father is ‘father’? and his father’s father is grandfather (momo); but 
his grandfather’s father is “father” again. This is the pattern that I 
found at Santa Ana (White, 1942 a, p. 156). It is reasonable to infer 
that the children of a grandchild would be “son” and “daughter,” 
also, but terms for these relatives were not obtained. 
Bilaterality is even more pronounced in terms used by women than 
in the terminology of men (fig. 23). All cousins are “brother’’ and 
“‘sister,’’? and their children are ‘‘son’’ and “‘daughter.’? The parents 
of “grandparents” are “grandparents”; no one gave us “father”? and 
