SOCIAL ORGANIZATION OF WINNEBAGO INDIANS. 
3 
These examples bring out quite forcibly the point made 
above, that the “tenacity” exhibited to-day or at any particular 
time is itself not a constant, for at different epochs different 
elements of the social unit may determine it. That, however, 
the twofold division of the Winnebago is a social-political 
grouping is, I believe, unquestionable, although to-day, to the 
minds of the Winnebago, not the social-political grouping, but 
one element — and probably one that has been secondarily 
associated with the original grouping— determines to what half 
a new clan shall belong. 
These general considerations are of considerable importance 
in the study of Siouan culture, because we are there confronted 
with a specific application of the criteria of “tenacity” and 
quantitative resemblances. The twofold division of the tribe 
is found among the Winnebago, Dhegiha, Tciwere, Hidatsa, 
and Mandan. The Dhegiha and Tciwere show numerous 
cultural and specific sociological similarities to the Winnebago, 
and this, together with the intimate linguistic affiliation, makes it 
fairly certain that the twofold division goes back to a common 
origin. Difficulties in the interpretation appear, however, as 
soon as we approach the Hidatsa and Mandan, who present 
only general cultural similarities to the above-mentioned tribes, 
and among whom nevertheless a dichotomous social division 
exists. If dichotomy is the significant factor in the social 
organization of all these tribes, one might very well claim that 
here an example of the “tenacity” of social organization is to be 
found. 
Such reasoning is, however, a typical example of a purely 
detached analytical interpretation. The essential characteristic 
of this social organization is not the dichotomy but the cultural 
complex-dichotomy, exogamy, specific names, and the functions 
of the two halves. Now, while it may be justifiable to consider 
this division as historically primary for the Winnebago, Dhegiha, 
and Tciwere, it does not follow, owing to the innumerable 
possibilities of the formation of a twofold division, that wherever 
such a division is found and a linguistic relationship can be demon- 
strated, we are dealing with a common cultural possession. 
These social organizations can only then be considered as com- 
