HOLMES ANNIVERSARY VOLUME 



Californians possessed a class system like that of the Arunta, I should 

 not hesitate to ascribe the similarity to this institution; since neither 

 they nor any other American tribes have anything of the sort, I 

 confess that I have no explanation to offer. But we are not always 

 so unfortunate. The fact that the Tlingit and Crow class the father's 

 sister's daughter with the father's sister is intelligible from the com- 

 mon possession of a maternal exogamous grouping by these tribes. 

 Here as among the Choctaw, certain Pueblo and some Melanesian 

 tribes the clan factor has proved stronger as a classificatory device 

 than the generation factor. Obviously clan exogamy does not furnish 

 a complete explanation, since it does not produce the same effect 

 among the Iroquois, to cite but one illustration. Whether we can 

 adduce an additional sociological determinant, remains to be seen. 

 At all events, we may say that the trait in question is a function of 

 matrilineal descent plus certain unknown factors tending to an accen- 

 tuation of the rule of descent. So, wherever we can connect empirical 

 resemblances between unrelated tribes with actual social customs 

 from which those resemblances naturally flow, we have an adequate 

 explanation of the phenomenon of similarity and do not require re- 

 course to borrowing or cultural relationship. 



As everywhere, so here there will be room for doubt and subjective 

 interpretation. For example, who would state categorically that the 

 clan system of the Muskhogeans did or did not give rise to the merging 

 of collateral and lineal kin independently of the development of this 

 feature among the other tribes of the Eastern clan area? Here we find 

 both similar conditions adequate to the production of the termino- 

 logical trait and contiguity of territory. I can conceive the diffusion 

 of a clan organization with a correlated terminology at a relatively 

 early period over the entire Eastern area; but I can also conceive an 

 independent development of the terminology from a mere diffusion 

 of the clan concept (not to consider other logical possibilities). If the 

 Tlingit and Haida developed a "classificatory" system independently, 

 so could the Choctaw or the Iroquois. In such instances I think it best 

 to admit frankly either that we can not make up our minds or that 

 our theoretical preferences rest on more or less subjective grounds. 

 In this regard the study of kinship nomenclature does not differ in 

 the least from like investigations of other cultural elements. And I 

 hope the foregoing remarks have illustrated the axiom, sometimes 

 ignored by ethnologists, that every ethnological problem is primarily 

 a problem of distribution. 



American Museum of Natural History 

 New York City 



[300 



