ANTHROPOLOGY: T. MICHELSON 
299 
Algonquian state as opposed to Ojibwa, etc.^ This is exactly what 
might have been anticipated, for the sub-division represented by Cree- 
Montagnais, Menominee, Sauk, Fox, Kickapoo, and Shawnee in many 
respects Knguistically is more archaic than the subdivision represented by 
Ojibwa, Ottawa, Algonkin, Pota,watomi, Peoria and closely related 
tribes.'^ This applies especially to the first four dialects of the latter 
sub-division. 
I spoke above of the borrowing of categories to explain certain terms 
of relationship. But this was within a single linguistic stock. Now as 
some members of both the Iroquoian and Siouan stocks have systems of 
consanguinity that in certain respects are identical with those of some 
members of the Algonquian stock, and at the same time geographically 
are contiguous to them, I do not think it likely that this is merely the 
result of accident. In short we have borrowing of categories across 
linguistic stocks. I mention this to show how inadequately social or- 
ganization by itself can account for the terms of relationship of Algon- 
quian languages. 
Again the Piegan, a member of a linguistically divergent major group 
of Algonquian tribes, who are apparently organized in gentes in the 
making, have practically no terms of relationship that are the phonetic 
equivalents of those of the central group. Nor do the categories cor- 
respond with theirs. It is difficult to see how this is due to the social 
organization of the former. It will be borne in mind that the Plains 
Cree are if anything looser in organization, and yet have the old terms 
of relationship. It will be recalled that Cree in many respects is an 
archaic Algonquian language."^ On the face of it, it looks as if we 
again had a linguistic problem. 
Summing up, we must say that from the point of view of Algonquian 
tribes terms of relationship are linguistic and disseminative phenomena. 
But I do not deny that in other cases they may be primarily psychological 
and sociological. We have no right to generalize from a single stock and 
apply our conclusions everywhere. When some dozens of stocks shall 
have been analyzed somewhat on the above plan, it may be possible 
safely to generalize. Till then we have every reason to believe that all 
the factors have played a role in kinship- terms. 
1 /. R. Anthrop. Inst. G. B. I., Lo?idon, 39, 77-84. 
2 Kinship and Social Organization, London, 1914; The History of Melanesian Society, 
Cambridge, England, 1914. 
3 These Proceedings 1, 346-349; Amer. Anthrop., New York, N. S., 17, 223-239. How- 
ever Lowie makes an exception in the case of the Cree terms of relationship which, he thinks, 
