692 



felNNlKINNICK KINSHIP 



been occupied by the people bf thfe latter 

 place as a summer settlement. See Min- 

 deleff in 8th Rep. B. A. E., pi. lxvi, 91, 

 1891; Fewkes in 22d Rep. B. A. E., 134, 

 1904. 



Kinna-zinde. — Mindeleff, oj). fit. Zinni jin'n e. — 

 Gushing quoted by Powell in -Ith Rep. B. A. E., 

 xxxviii, 1886 (confused with Kintyel). 



Kinnikinnick. An Indian preparation 

 of tobacco, sumac leaves, and the inner 

 bark of a species of dogwood, used for 

 smoking by the Indians and the old set- 

 tlers and hunters in the W. The prep- 

 aration varied in different localities and 

 with different tribes. Bartlett quotes 

 Trumbull assaying: "I have smoked 

 half a dozen varieties of kinnikinnick 

 in the N. W., all genuine." The word, 

 which has as variants, kinnik-kiiniik, 

 k'nickk'neck, kinnikinik, killikinnick, 

 etc., is derived from one of the Cree or 

 Chippewa dialects of Algonquian. The 

 literal signification is, 'what is mixed.' 

 InChippewa, kinikinige means ' he mixes,' 

 from the radical kinika, 'mixed.' The 

 name was also applied by the white hunt- 

 ers, traders, and settlers to various shrubs, 

 etc., the Ijark or leaves of which are em- 

 ployed in the mixture: Red osier ( Cor- 

 nus stolonifera) , bearherry {Arctostapht/los 

 uva-ursi), silky cornel ( Cor/ms sericea), 

 ground dogwood (C. ennadensis). Mat- 

 thews (Am. Anthrop., v, 170, 1903) main- 

 tains that the ordinary source of kinni- 

 kinnick was not the red willow, as has 

 often been said, but the silky cornel, a 

 species of dogwood, bearing, especially in 

 winter, a marked resemblance to the red- 

 bark willow. See Smoking, Tobacco. 



(A. F. C.) 



Kinship. The foundation of social or- 

 ganization, and hence of government, the 

 tangible form of social organization, was 

 originally the bond of real and legal l)lood 

 kinship. The recognition and perpetua- 

 tion of the ties of blood kinship were the 

 first imj^ortant steps in the permanent 

 social organization of society. 



Among the North American Indians 

 kinship is primarily the relation siabsist- 

 ing between two or more persons whose 

 blood is derived from common ancestors 

 through lawful marriage. Persons be- 

 tween whom kinship subsists are called 

 kin or kindred. Kinship may be lineal 

 or collateral. By birth through the nat- 

 ural order of descent kindred are divided 

 into generations or categories, which rep- 

 resent lineally and collaterally relation- 

 ships or degrees of kinship, which in 

 turn are sometimes modified by the age 

 and the sex of the persons so affected. 

 In noting the degrees of kinship in the 

 direct line all systems appear to agree in 

 assigning one degree to a generation. Thus 

 is developed a complex system of rela- 

 tionships. The extent and the complex- 

 ity of the system in any case vary with 



the Social organization of the, pebple. 

 These degrees of kinship may be tailed 

 relationships, and they define more or 

 less clearly the station, rights, and obli- 

 gations of the several individuals of the 

 kinship group specified. The distinction 

 between relationship and kinship must 

 not be confused, for there are persons 

 who are related but who do not belong 

 to the same kin. 



In speaking of the entire body of a group 

 of kindred it is necessary that reference 

 be made to some person, the propositus, 

 as the starting point. In general every 

 person belongs naturally to two distinct 

 families (see Familii) or kinship groU])S, 

 namely, that of the father and that of the 

 mothei. These two groups of kindred, 

 which before his birth were entirely dis- 

 tinct for the purposes of marriage and the 

 inheritance of property and certain other 

 rights, privileges, andf obligations, unite 

 in his person and thereafter* form only 

 subdivisions of his general group of kin- 

 dred, and both these groups share with 

 him the rights, privileges, and obligations 

 of kindred. 



There are two radically different meth- 

 ods of naming these relationships; the 

 one is called the classificatory, the other 

 the descriptive method. In the descrip- 

 tive phrase the actual relationship be- 

 comes a matter of implication — that is, the 

 relationship is made specific either by the 

 primary terms of relationship or by a 

 combination of them. Under the first, 

 kindred are never described, but are clas- 

 sified into categories and the same term 

 of relationship is applied to every person 

 belonging to the same category. In the 

 descriptive system of naming kinship de- 

 grees there is usually found a number of 

 classificatory terms. 



There has been prevalent hitherto 

 among many ethnologists the opinion that 

 the tracing of descent through the pater- 

 nal line is in most cases a development 

 from the system of tracing descent exclu- 

 sively through females, and that, there- 

 fore, the latter system is antecedent and 

 more primitive than the former. But it 

 is not at all clear that there has been ad- 

 duced in support of this contention any . 

 conclusive evidence that it is a fact or 

 that either system has been transformed 

 from the other; but it is evident that such 

 an improbable procedure would have 

 caused the disregard and rupture of a vast 

 body of tabus — of tal)us among the most 

 sacred known, namely, the tabus of incest. 



The kinship system in vogue among 

 the Klamath Indians of California and 

 Oregon is apparently typical of those 

 tribes in which, like the Kiowa, both 

 the clan and the gentile systems of kin- 

 ship are wanting. This lack of either sys- 

 tem, so far as known, is characteristic of 



