LOWIE— KINSHIP TERMINOLOGIES 



specific customs, beliefs, or implements, particular features of kinship 

 nomenclature are sign-posts of cultural relationship. This being so, 

 it becomes obvious that in order to get the full benefit of relationship 

 systems for historical purposes it does not suffice to record the funda- 

 mental elements of a terminology. On the contrary, as in other cases 

 apparently trifling features are the most important because when 

 they are found to occur in distinct tribes a specific historical connec- 

 tion is indicated. It is likewise clear that after such a general qualita- 

 tive orientation as I have given above, far more detailed and in some 

 measure quantitative studies along lines suggested by Professor 

 Kroeber must set in. It is not the same thing whether half the termi- 

 nology of a tribe is reciprocal or whether reciprocity is expressed only 

 for the paternal grandfather and the son's son; nor whether classifi- 

 catory terms (in an etymological sense) exist like our own "cousin" 

 and "uncle" or whether the classification includes father's brothers 

 with the father, as in many primitive systems. A much finer statis- 

 tical treatment is likely to reveal the accentuation of traits in a par- 

 ticular center of distribution and their gradual diminution as we pass 

 toward the periphery of the area in question. If, as appears rather 

 likely from certain indications, the entire western slope of the United 

 States should then be found to differ markedly from the rest of the 

 continent in point of kinship terminology, that result would be of 

 considerable historical significance, over and above the value of par- 

 ticular historical inferences. 



It remains to say a word on the relation of the historical to the 

 sociological point of view. In a paper already cited I have expressed 

 my belief in the validity of sociological interpretation, and since I 

 still adhere to this conviction I feel it incumbent to harmonize with 

 it the apparently contradictory argument of the preceding pages. 



As stated above, I am in favor of dealing with kinship terms in 

 the same way as with other ethnographic features. In the interpreta- 

 tion of cultural resemblances the criterion for historical connection 

 generally applied by American investigators is occurrence in a con- 

 tinuous area or among tribes of known historical relations, while in 

 other instances they assume independent development. This pro- 

 cedure does not solve all perplexities but seems the only one that can 

 yield any assistance at all, and it is applicable in exactly the same 

 way to the problems at hand. When I find a reciprocal system among 

 the Yokuts and Kern River Indians, I explain the similarity by dif- 

 fusion; when I find a reciprocal system among the Australian Arunta 

 and the Kern River Indians, I do not. In this latter case the question 

 naturally arises how the similarity could arise independently. If the 



299] 



