LOWIE— KINSHIP TERMINOLOGIES 



the Papago; 1 the Yokuts; 2 the Kern River and Mono; 3 the Paviotso, 

 Moapa and Shivwits Paiute, Wind River and Lemhi Shoshone; 4 and 

 the Kootenay. 5 Having regard to our very meager information on 

 some of the tribes concerned, every one must again be impressed 

 with the fact that the trait discussed is spread over a large, practically 

 continuous area, among more than half a dozen distinct linguistic 

 families, while outside that area it is lacking. 



This phenomenon of distribution cannot be explained sociologic- 

 ally. The tribes cited vary fundamentally in social organization and 

 usage. Nothing could be more distinct in this regard than the clan 

 division of the Pueblo tribes and the loose organization of the Plateau 

 Shoshoneans. Moreover, no social usage that could conceivably unite 

 grandparent and grandchild has ever been reported in North America, 

 no trace of anything like the Australian class system being known. 



A more minute examination supports the theory of diffusion. 

 Sapir has shown that "in this matter of relationship terms two such 

 closely related dialects as Ute and Southern Paiute differ on a point 

 on which they respectively agree with a neighboring Shoshonean and 

 with a non-Shoshonean language (Tewa). Here, as often, a cultural 

 dividing line runs clear across a homogeneous linguistic group." 6 

 Similarly, Mr Gifford informs me that the Kern River people share 

 with the Southern Paiute the use of diminutive suffixes for the junior 

 relative designated by a reciprocal term. These tribes, though belong- 

 ing to distinct branches of the Shoshonean family, are geographically 

 contiguous. Why they should agree in a feature not common to the 

 entire family is not at all clear unless we assume that the similarity 

 is a contact phenomenon. Here again a sociological interpretation is 

 barred at the outset: what social usage or institution could lead to 

 the employment of a diminutive suffix? 



I can refer only briefly to certain other points. The occurrence of 

 the distinction between vocative and non-vocative forms is one of the 

 phenomena that should be investigated and plotted on a map. It is 

 markedly developed among Siouan tribes, but has also been noted by 

 Uhlenbeck for the Blackfoot, 7 by Morgan for the Nez Perce and 

 Yakima, 8 by Sapir for the Wishram. Before adopting any interpreta- 

 tion we must determine more definitely the distribution of this trait. 



1 Dr Kroeber. 



2 Kroeber, The Yokuts Language, p. 240. 



3 Mr Gifford. 



4 The writer's field notes. 



5 Professor Boas. 



6 Sapir, loc. cit. 



' Internationales Archiv fiir Ethnographie, xx, 1912, p. 205. 

 8 Morgan, op. cit., pp. 249 f. 



[297] 



