ANTHROPOLOGICAL RECORDS 14:6 CHANGING WASHO KINSHIP BY STANLEY A. FREED UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA PRESS BERKELEY AND LOS ANGELES 1960' CHANGING WASHO KINSHIP BY STANLEY A. FREED ANTHROPOLOGICAL RECORDS Vol. 14, No. 6 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA ANTHROPOLOGICAL RECORDS Editors (Berkeley): J. H. Rowe, R. F. Heizer, R. F. Murphy, E. Norbeck Volume 14, No. 6, pp. 349-418, 9 figures in text, 32 graphs Submitted by editors June 18, 1958 Issued February 5, 1960 Price, $1.50 University of California Press Berkeley and Los Angeles California Cambridge University Press London, England Manufactured in the United States of America CONTENTS Introduction ........................................................... 349 I. The Washo Indians ....................................................... 350 II. Washo social organization . ................................................ 355 III. Alternate terms and role behavior .......... ............................... 363 Conclusion ........................................................... 371 Appendixes I. Statistical analysis: tables of means, standard errors of the means, and 95 per cent confidence limits ......................................................... 379 II. Statistical analysis: comparison of roles .......................... 387 III. Role profiles ................................................... 396 IV. Graphs of the sixteen categories of role behavior ..... ............. 405 Bibliography ........................................................... 417 CHANGING WASHO KINSHIP BY STANLEY A. FREED INTRODUCTION This paper presents a study of Washo social organi- ition and of the changes which have occurred within since the end of the aboriginal period. It is parti- glarly concerned with discovering the causes of a pmber of alternate kinship terms which together ap- Oar to constitute a new, emerging system of kinship isminology. The hypothesis here advanced to account r the alternate kinship terms is that changes occur- j outside of social organization can affect the termi- ogical system without first modifying elements of mal social structure, such as residence rules or ls of descent. This hypothesis is based on the as- ptions that kinship terminology is closely corre- d with patterned norms of behavior, or roles, and these roles may vary considerably within the tS set by a given kind of social organization. tural changes can therefore cause terminological ge by altering role behavior without affecting the mal social structure. In order to test the assumption of a close correla- of role behavior and kinship terminology, I have sed a technique, called the role profile test, which ds an objective description of role behavior. The a from the role profile test show that Washo role avior agrees closely with the emerging system of hip terminology. The close correlation of role be- 'or and terminological system and the occurrence changes in the Washo system of kinship terminology pite a relatively stable social structure support the thesis that roles may vary markedly within the ts set by a given type of social structure, the iation being due to causes which lie outside of ial organization. The study is based on six months of field work ng the Washo living in Carson City and Dressler- e, Nevada, and Woodfords and Markleeville, Cali- ua. Four trips were made: during the first two, in the summers of 1952 and 1953, an attempt was made to add to the data on aboriginal Washo culture; during the last two, in the summer of 1956 and the winter of 1956-57, Washo social structure and kinship terminology were intensively investigated to deter- mine if they had changed appreciably as a result of white contact. My wife assisted me on these last two trips. I am indebted to a number of people for their help and encouragement. Professor Edward Norbeck, chair- man of my thesis committee, introduced me to the study of kinship and has closely guided both my field research and the writing of this report. Professor David M. Schneider pointed out to me the usefulness of the role concept in the study of kinship and social structure. The hypothesis here proposed to account for the Washo kinship data was derived from the arti- cles by Schneider and Homans (1955) and Schneider and Roberts (1956) and was elaborated and discussed in several long conversations with Dr. Schneider. Pro- fessor Mary R. Haas read the manuscript several times and offered a number of suggestions and criti- cisms. My thanks are also due Professor Josephine Miles and Martin A. Baumhoff, who read and criti- cized the manuscript. Professor Evelyn A. Fix sug- gested the statistical analysis used in this study, and the section on statistics was written under her super- vision. Any errors of calculation or interpretation are, of course, the responsibility of the author. Un- less otherwise noted, Washo words are written in a phonemic system developed for Washo by William H. Jacobsen, Jr., who did his work under the Survey of California Indian Languages, Department of Linguistics, University of California, Berkeley. Mr. Jacobsen ad- vised me on all linguistic matters. The field research was supported by the Department of Anthropology, Uni- versity of California, Berkeley. [ 349 1 I. THE WASHO INDIANS This chapter is a brief summary of what is known of aboriginal Washo culture, except for social organi- zation, together with the principal changes it has un- dergone since the coming of the whites. The most sig- nificant characteristic of Washo acculturation from the point of view of this study has been the progressive individualization of the society. This can be seen most clearly in their economic life, where the old, codpera- tive methods of earning a livelihood have given way to individual wage work. The trend toward individualism has also affected ceremonial. The major ceremony of the year, the pine-nut dance, has been given up; and curing is less a group affair than it once was, with the exception of the peyotists, who constitute approxi- mately ten per cent of the tribal membership. War- fare, another activity requiring group co8peration, was abandoned shortly after the coming of the whites. The effects upon social organization of this trend toward individualism will be traced in the following chapters. INFORMANTS The sketch of Washo culture which follows is based primarily upon the sources listed below and upon data which I gathered directly in the field. My principal informants were the following: Nancy Emm, Clara Frank, Bertha Holbrook, and Hank Pete, all of Dress- lerville, Nevada; Roy James, Woodfords, California; Caesar John, Markleeville, California; and Henry Ru- pert, Carson City, Nevada. SOURCES Ethnographic accounts of the Washo are few. The principal ones are by Barrett (1917), Curtis (1926), and Lowie (1939). Stewart (1944) and Siskin (MS) have contributed two excellent studies of Washo peyotism, and Kroeber (1907) has published a brief sketch of the Washo language, which contains a list of kinship terms. Other major sources are Dangberg's (1927) collection of myths, Kroeber's (1925) brief summary of the then available data on Washo culture, Stewart's (1941) list of cultural elements, and Heizer and El- sasser's (1953) study of the archaeology of the central Sierra Nevada. LOCATION The Washo Indians are a small, isolated group who speak a language tentatively placed in the Hokan stock (Sapir, 1929, p. 139). In aboriginal times they occupied the extreme western edge of Nevada and eastern Cali- fornia. The eastern part of their territory lay in the Great Basin and the western part in the Sierra Nevada. Aboriginal Washo territory extended from Honey Lake in the north to Sonora Pass in the south. The eastern boundary ran from Sonora Pass northward along the crest of the Pine Nut Mountains; it then turned west passing just west of Virginia City; then north to a point a few miles east of Reno, and from there northwest to Honey Lake. The western boundary followed the crest of the Sierra Nevada. Lake Tahoe and the eastern half of Sierra Valley were in Washo territory, as were the modern towns of Woodfords, Truckee, and Loyalton, California; and Reno, Carson City, Minden, and Gard- nerville, Nevada (Barrett, 1917, pp. 5-7; Curtis, 1926, pp. 57, 89; Kroeber, 1925, pp. 569-570; Lowie, 1939, p. 301; Merriam, MS; Siskin, 1938, pp. 626-627; Stewart, 1944, p. 66). POPULATION Estimates of the aboriginal population vary consider-, ably. Kroeber (1925, p. 570) gives the total in pre-whiti times at possibly 1,500. Mooney estimates 1,000 Washo in 1845, the date he considers to mark the end of the aboriginal period. Mooney believes that the Washo pop lation had fallen to 300 by 1907 (1928, p. 20). This last figure differs markedly from Curtis' estimate of 800 Washo only three years later in 1910 (1926, p. 91). Th Washo tribal secretary, Ronald James, estimates the present-day Washo at 850. Many of them have moved to the cities; probably no more than 600 remain within the boundaries of what was formerly Washo territory. GEOGRAPHICAL DIVISIONS There are three geographically distinct groups of Washo. Those living north of Carson City, Nevada, are called welmelh9. Washo living in the Carson Val- ley are called p6awa?lu?, and the California Washo are called hajalelhi?, with the present California- Nevada border being the approximate dividing line be- tween these last two groups (Simpson, 1876, pp. 93-94; Curtis, 1926, p. 90). I know of no cultural differences between these two groups, but the welmelhii are said to differ from the other two by their slow manner of speech. In the spring and summer, when the Washo moved up to Lake Tahoe, the welmelti 9 camped main- ly around the northern half of the lake from McKinney around to Glenbrook. The pa'wa9lu? lived on the west- ern side of the lake south of McKinney, and the south- ern and eastern lake shore was mixed haijalelhi? and pa wa9lu?. However, any family was free to camp any where around the lake. SEASONAL MIGRATIONS The Washo were migratory hunters, fishers, and gatherers. A family usually spent the winter in the Pine Nut Mountains. In the spring, the able-bodied men and women went to Lake Tahoe to fish. The rest of the family moved into the great valleys east of the Sierra Nevada where they searched for roots, grass seeds, birds, birds' eggs, and berries. From time to time, someone who had gone to the lake would carry [ 350 1 i i I I FREED: CHANGING WASHO KINSHIP a load of fish back to the valley to help feed those fuho had been left behind. In the fall, groups of Washo ould travel into California to gather acorns. These pa frequently took them as far west as Placerville. Washo then returned to the Pine Nut Mountains the pine-nut season. In the years when there was crop of pine nuts, a family might choose to winter Lake Tahoe or in one of the valleys east of the erra Nevada. The Washo no longer lead a migratory life. The res of Lake Tahoe are now privately owned, and Washo may not fish there. They still obtain acorns m California, but they no longer have to travel in ups for protection. The trip takes only a day or in an automobile and may be made by an individual a single family. The only noteworthy survival of old seasonal migrations is the fall trip to the Pine Mountains to hunt deer and gather pine nuts. Many lies, especially those headed by older people, still nd a month or longer in the Pine Nut Mountains. ECONOMIC LIFE The major game animals were deer, antelope, and bit. Deer could be hunted individually or communal- The leader of the communal deer hunt was a secu- officer; that is, he did not derive his authority m dreams (Lowie, 1939, p. 326). He divided the ting party into two groups. One group built fires drove the deer toward the other hunters who were g in ambush with bow and arrow. The captured r were divided among all who participated in the t. Deer provided, in addition to food, hides for thes and sinews for use in the manufacture of bows arrows. Deer could be hunted by small parties of four or ye men. When pursued, deer follow a certain route; as the Indians knew which way the animals would some of them chased the deer while others took short cut and lay in wait. Disguises consisting of horns and hide of a deer were sometimes used to proach a herd of deer and lure them close to a up of concealed hunters (Curtis, 1926, pp. 94-95). Deer remain a fairly important item of food for modern Washo. Today deer are hunted by indivi- ala armed with rifles; the old, cooperative methods deer hunting are no longer practised. Antelope were hunted by a technique known as ante- e charming. The leader of the antelope hunt re- ved his power through dreams. He communicated th the animals in his dreams and told them not to afraid of him. When antelope were sighted, the asho built a corral of sagebrush. The antelope rmer approached the herd and talked to them, adually leading them into the corral. This was ac- mpanied by a slow drive by the rest of the Indians. ce the antelope were inside the corral, the Washo hed upon them and killed them with clubs and bows arrows. The animals were divided among all the ters. This method of hunting must have disappeared ry early, for no antelope chief was living in 1926 wie, 1939, p. 324). Rabbits were hunted by a communal drive under the adership of a secular rabbit chief. This officer was tinct from both the leader of the deer hunt and the telope charmer. According to Barrett (1917, p. 12), was a hereditary officer; according to Lowie (1939, p. 303), an elected official. As many as 200 Indians might take part in a rabbit drive. The rabbits were slowly driven into long nets. During the drive, they were shot with bows and arrows or killed with clubs. Those which evaded the drivers were usually trapped in the nets, where waiting Indians killed them by wring- ing their necks or squeezing their temples. Care had to be used not to break the net and cause bad luck for the hunters (Barrett, 1917, p. 12). Rabbits provided food, and their skins were used to make rabbitskin blankets. Rabbits have remained a rather important food for the Washo, and rabbitskin blankets are still used by a few older Washo. Today, rabbits are hunted individaully or in a kind of drive which consists of a line of men moving through the sagebrush, shooting the flushed rabbits with shot- guns. Nets are no longer used. Another modern hunting method which is popular among the younger men is to shoot rabbits from an automobile. The principal seeds used as food were acorns and pine nuts. Acorns did not grow in Washo territory. They were gathered in California and carried back in large, twined burden baskets. The acorns were shelled, pounded to flour on permanent bedrock mortars, leached with hot water, and made into soup. Another popular way to prepare acorns was to pour a thick acorn mush into cold water, thus forming jellylike balls about the size of a fist. The preparation of acorn meal by the Washo closely resembles the practices of the adjacent Californian tribes. Pine nuts were the most important single food of the Washo. They were eaten throughout the winter and stored from year to year. The pine-nut season was preceded by a dance lasting four days. This was the largest social gathering among the Washo. During these four days, they danced, played games, and prayed for a good crop. While dancing, the Washo carried the tools used to gather and prepare pine nuts: the hooked pole, burden baskets, mano and metate, and the paddle for stirring mush. The most prominent feature of the pine-nut dance was the continual round of games and races, accompanied by heavy gambling. After the last night's dancing, the chief made a speech exhorting people to treat children and the aged with kindness and to be good to their wives. Then they bathed in a stream and scattered to their pine-nut plots (Curtis, 1926, p. 95). Pine nuts were ground to flour and made into soup. The Washo still make considerable use of pine nuts and acorns. Most of the traditional implements used in their preparation have been retained: mortar, mano and metate, burden baskets, hooked pole, and the various winnowing baskets. Although acorns and pine nuts are widely eaten, they cannot now be considered staple items in the Washo diet, which consists largely of modern American food. Fish were the most important summer food for the Washo. They obtained most of their fish from the streams draining into Lake Tahoe. The importance of fish in the Washo economy is indicated by the variety of fishing tech- niques: they could be harpooned, taken in conical traps of basketry, or captured by drives into nets or stone dams erected at suitable places in a stream. None of the ab- original fishing techniques survive today. All fishing is with rod and line and is therefore individualistic as op- posed to many of the aboriginal cooperative methods. In fishing, as in hunting, there has been a steady shift from cobperative to individual activity. 351 3ANTHROPOLOGICAL RECORDS In spite of the moderate number of hold-overs from the old economic system, the economic base of modern Washo life has changed considerably since the 1850's. Today, the Washo live primarily through wage work on surrounding ranches and in the towns. The men are mainly unskilled laborers, although a few have trades and earn a good living. One man has grown wealthy in the lumber business. Women work as domestic ser- vants, as dishwashers in restaurants, or in laundries. But women do not work unless they must, and they spend most of their time at home caring for their families. Most of the aboriginal survivals are in the female sphere of activity, for women can add consid- erably to the family income by preparing pine-nut and acorn flour and by weaving baskets for sale. The older people have pensions or receive social security payments and are economically independent of their children. Washo material culture is entirely American except for the items mentioned above and a few others. They now live in permanent settlements resembling small, American towns. The largest of these, Dress- lerville, Nevada, has a population of 195. This is far larger than the number of individuals who lived to- gether in prewhite settlements. CEREMONIES OF THE LIFE CYCLE A number of practices were formerly associated with childbirth. The mother ate no meat or salt for a month after the birth; the father observed the same taboos until the baby's umbilical cord fell off; and un- til the loss of the cord, husband and wife were for- bidden sexual intercourse. Ceremonies involving the distribution of gifts marked the return of the father and mother to normal life, the former when the infant lost its umbilical cord and the latter a month after the birth. Most of the customs surrounding birth are no longer observed. Some women still observe the food taboos; but if they have their babies in the government hospi- tal, they generally eat meat when it is served. Often the doctors and nurses insist upon it. The men have given up all their previous observances. The custom of distributing presents following the birth of a baby is still maintained. It usually takes place two weeks after the birth and seems to be a merging of two abo- riginal ceremonies: the one at the time of the detach- ment of the umbilical cord, and the second, when the mother is freed of all restrictions a month after the birth. The modern ceremony is called the "baby feast." The girl's puberty rite or "dance:' as the Washo call it, was the most elaborate of all the ceremonies of the life cycle. It lasted four days, and the Washo say that during this period the girl was "shaping her life.' The principal features of the ceremony were: (1) the girl fasted four days and abstained from meat and fish for one month; (2) she worked very hard so as not to be lazy in later life; (3) on the fourth night, the girl climbed a mountain where she lit four fires; (4) she then raced a nonrelative back to the foot of the mountain, care being taken that she always won the race; (5) the girl danced until dawn on the fourth night of the ceremony and was then bathed. The entire cere- mony was repeated when the girl had her second menses. The puberty ceremony for girls is still held. In my interviewing, I have found very few women who had not had a "dance!' Each woman who had not had a dance gave a reason for its omission, such as her a tendance at a government boarding-school. In genera the ceremony is scrupulously observed. The modern. ceremony is a modified version of the old one. The girl no longer climbs a mountain; she climbs a sma hill. An automobile is waiting for her when she re-7 turns; she wears her slip when she is being bathed instead of being naked as was formerly the custom; she abstains from meat for only two weeks instead I a month; the second dance is usually omitted. Yet essentials of the ceremony are maintained; and this , in the face of the teasing to which the Indian girl i exposed from her white schoolmates, for the public puberty ceremony makes her a conspicuous social 0 ject at the time of her first menses. Marriages were celebrated with a minimum of c mony. The most desirable Washo marriage was one; arranged by the parents of the bride and groom. Su a marriage was preceded by an exchange of presen To refuse a present was to reject the prospective bride or groom. Following the exchange of gifts, t] new couple began to live together without further c mony (Curtis, 1926, p. 97; Lowie, 1939, p. 308). T exchange of presents was optional, and occasionally boy and girl would live together without the benefit parental arrangements (Barrett, 1917, p. 9; Lowie, p. 308). Perhaps arranged marriages were never v frequent or else the custom began to die out very for in my interviews I found only two arranged ma ages out of a total of forty-eight. Today, most pe marry in the "tribal" manner, that is, they just to live together. Even those few who have purchas marriage licenses usually neglect to go to a justice peace to complete the ceremony officially. Curtis (1926, p. 97) says that the dead were for ly cremated. Lowie (1939, p. 310) and Barrett (191 p. 9) confirm this but add that, by the time they s the Washo, burial had replaced cremation. Followi cremation, the Washo collected the bones of the d person and placed them in a creek. The clothes personal property of the deceased person were b or hidden and the house he used was abandoned. old men and women cut their hair and mourned for three months (Lowie, 1939, p. 310). Modern funerals retain many Indian practices. C among them are the customs intended to make sure that the ghost of the dead person does not return t trouble the living. Before the body is lowered into grave, an old man steps forward and makes a spe instructing the ghost to stay away. All of the dead person's property that can be buried is interred wi him. Personal property must be destroyed, for thi is the "road" by which the ghost of the dead can r turn and trouble the living. RELIGION AND CURING The shaman was the principal religious figure. possessed supernatural power (wegeleyu) which he ceived in dreams and which he learned to control ing an apprenticeship of several years under an e ienced shaman. A shaman could use his power ei to cure sickness or to kill. Supernatural power co come from the deer, rattlesnake, "water-baby" (a small, white, manlike creature which lived in str springs, and lakes), bear, and eagle. The Washo both the sources of power and the power itself we I L 352 FREED: CHANGING WASHO KINSHIP he word also denotes the implements used in curing. A curing ceremony usually lasted four nights al- ough it was sometimes reduced to two. The rites Ore the same each night. For the first three nights, ie shaman would stop around midnight; on the final ght he continued until dawn. The shaman's techniques Dnsisted largely of smoking, singing the songs he had Pceived from his wegeleyu, praying, and finally suck- g out the cause of the disease. This might be an sect, a pine nut, a small piece of bone, or some her small object. The shaman's paraphernalia in- uded a rattle, a straight stone pipe, and, for at last one shaman, a bone whistle. Two shamans were active among the Washo as re- intly as a few years ago. Today, only one remains ive, and he is an old man. When he dies, shamanism 11 disappear. Modern Washo medicine is a mixture shamanism, white medicine, and curing through yote meetings. Any or all remedies may be tried a particular patient. The older people are reluc- 1t to go to the government doctor, for they have a lr of being placed in the hospital. They tend to pa- onize the shaman and the peyote cult in preference the white doctor. The peyotists, though sincere be- vers, also recognize the powers of the shaman and e white doctor and readily patronize either of them. he younger people, however, prefer modern medicine; d it is steadily displacing the other two methods of ring. POLITICAL ORGANIZATION AND LEADERS Washo political organization was extremely simple. ttlements were minute; Lowie's informants said that y usually had only two to four huts (1939, p. 303). Ich settlement was politically independent. Washo tormants report the presence of tribal chiefs, but twie thinks that this was probably a recent develop- nt (1939, p. 303). The chief's sole function was to range dances and to make speeches exhorting the sho to be good and to behave properly. Special admen led the communal antelope, deer, and rabbit nts. The antelope chief received his power in dreams; other two hunting chiefs were secular officers. The political organization of the modern Washo is re complex. They have adopted a written constitu- and they elect a tribal council. Yet this new com- eity is largely nominal, for the council exercises e real power and each family does pretty much as pleases. The chief responsibilities of the council to manage the small amount of tribal property to maintain the water supply in Dresslerville, ada. Though these are relatively simple matters, council handles them quite ineptly. Factional fights personal antagonisms block any really effective cil action. The older people, who run the council, in incapable of dealing with the important problems ch face the modern Washo; and the younger people ar to take little interest in council affairs. In t, the Washo have not yet developed an effective tical organization. WARFARE Warfare seems to have been waged under the leader- p of any renowned fighter. The leader collected his band by sending a messenger around the country carry- ing a knotted cord (ba9l10go). The knots represented the number of days remaining until the persons who wished to take part in the fight were to gather at the place of assembly, and the messenger untied one knot every day so as to keep track of the time that remained. After the warriors had assembled, they engaged in a war dance which lasted four or eight nights. During this period, they manufactured bows and arrows. The arrows were smeared with rattlesnake poison obtained by letting a rattlesnake strike a piece of deer meat. The war dance was a kind of test and training for war- fare. A man demonstrated by vigorous dancing that he was strong and fit to go to war; and the dance itself consisted of sudden, jerking movements as if one were dodging arrows. The war dance resembled the pine-nut dance in that features of both dances imitated the com- ing activities: in the war dance, men danced with bows and arrows and acted as if they were at war; in the pine-nut dance, people carried their implements for gathering and cooking pine nuts. Several taboos were observed during the period of the war dance: (1) men and women were forbidden sexual intercourse; (2) war- riors could not eat meat and salt; (3) pregnant women could not throw their shadows on men engaged in dan- cing and they could not touch the bows and arrows. Shamans who accompanied the war party served two functions: they called on their supernatural power to keep the enemy and his dogs asleep during the assault; and since they were specialists in herbal medicine, they treated the wounded. The shamans also selected the night for the attack. While the Washo were sur- rounding the enemy camp, the shamans became very intent on their praying so that none of the enemy should awake. The Washo then entered the camp of the enemy, set fire to their huts, and killed them with clubs and arrows as they emerged. Everyone was killed, even small babies. When the Washo returned, they had a dance which lasted two or four nights. Lowie reports that men and women danced over the capture of the scalp of the enemy regarded as the best fighter. The scalp was tied to the top of an eight-foot, peeled, willow pole, which everyone except young girls seized and shook. The people finally burned the hair of the scalp and then went home (Lowie, 1939, pp. 329-330). My infor- mants omitted mention of the scalp, but said that an important feature of the dance after the fighting was a ritual bath. This was necessary before the warriors could eat or have intercourse with their wives. The Washo apparently were militarily superior to the Mi- wok and the Maidu on the west, but they found the more numerous Paiute on their eastern border more formidable opponents. The fact that the Paiute obtained horses earlier than the Washo would also have given the Paiute some superiority in warfare. SUMMARY Aboriginal Washo culture may be thought of as a blend of Californian and Great Basin cultural traits Heizer and Elsasser (1953, p. 4) note the following ties with California: . . . the conical dwelling made by piling up bark slabs; semi-subterranean assembly house; "com- munity" or bedrock mortar; emphasis on coiled I 353 ANTHROPOLOGICAL RECORDS basketry decorated with named geometric patterns; language affiliation; soaproot meal brush; looped withe hot rock lifter; flat mush stirring paddle; hopper-mortar; feather-decorated coiled basketry. Certain traits link the Washo with the Great Basin area (Heizer and Elsasser, 1953, p. 4): . . . long net for catching rabbits by driving tech- nique; special "boss" for rabbit and deer hunt; rab- bitskin blanket; heavy dependence for food on nuts of pinion ( Pinus monophylla) with the complex of implements and activities used to secure and pre- pare these (hooked pole, roasting of nuts, carrying baskets); mano and metate; twined basketry tech- niques and basket forms (e.g., winnowing trays); tem- porary brush house; antelope hunting method by "charm- ing"; private ownership of clumps of pinion trees. Modern Washo culture is largely western American with a moderate number of aboriginal hold-overs. The old, prewhite culture survives most strongly in lan- guage, ceremony, and, as we shall see in the next chapter, social structure. The most important change with reference to this study has been the lessening of co6perative activity. This trend has progressed far- thest in economics. Although the economic unit has always been the nuclear family, aboriginal economic activity emphasized group co8peration much more than it does today. The modern Indian works for wages; he is part of the larger society where economic activity is impersonal and one's coworkers may be relative strangers. If an Indian family so chooses, it can be economically independent of relatives and friends. This same trend is visible to a lesser extent in ceremonial The prewhite curing ceremony was a group affair; but modern, white medicine is essentially a relationship between doctor and patient. There is no longer a large group of friends and relatives standing by to lend mor support. Some ceremonies, such as the pine-nut dance, have disappeared completely. 354 II. WASHO SOCIAL ORGANIZATION A number of changes have taken place in Washo cial organization since the end of the aboriginal riod: the form of marriage has changed from non- roral polygyny to monogamy; the system of kinship fminology is apparently changing, as indicated by ! existence of a set of alternate kinship terms; the rorate and levirate have been abandoned; and a ak system of agamous moieties has been lost. Other ements of social organization appear to have been rly stable, e.g., rule of residence, patterns of de- ent and inheritance, and form of the family. The analysis of Washo social organization given in 1s chapter is based on the investigations of Barrett 917), Curtis (1926), Kroeber (1907; 1917), Lowie 939), and Siskin (MS), and upon the following kinds ~ data which I gathered in the field. First, the most uliable elderly informants were intensively interviewed but all aspects of social organization both past and esent. Second, kinship schedules were obtained from renty informants ranging in age from ten to over ghty. In addition, brief life histories and census data re collected in the course of the genealogical inter- ews. The life histories provided information on forms marriage. Residence rules were determined both om the census material and from the life histories, nce both kinds of data are necessary to establish sidence rules adequately (Fortes, 1949; Goodenough, 56; Murdock, 1955). Finally, sociometric data using ily visiting patterns as the criterion were collected th the thought that, if any incipient unilineal kinship ups were present, they might be discoverable from pattern of interfamily visiting. The methods used to determine change in social ganization were the same as those used by Bruner 955), Eggan (1937), Gough (1952), Nett (1952), hmitt and Schmitt (n.d.), and Spoehr (1947). The tings of earlier investigators and interviews with er informants supplied information on changes in sidence rules, kinds of kinship groups, and forms marriage. Changes in the system of kinship termi- ogy were determined by comparing the variant ages contained in the large sample of modern kin- p schedules with what was thought to be the abori- al Washo kinship terminology. For the Washo, the riginal terminology may be established with rela- confidence because the early kinship schedules ected by Kroeber (1907; 1917) and Lowie (1939) ee closely with each other and with the termino- cal system used by the majority of modern Washo. Terminological change has a restricted meaning e. It refers only to changes which result in a new of terminological system. Since the widely used sifications of kinship systems are based on the sanguine relatives of ego' s generation and the first ending and first descending generations (Spier, 5; Lowie, 1928; Murdock, 1949), a change in the enclature of cousins or aunts and uncles is signifi- whereas change in terms for grandparents' sib- g or affinal relatives is not significant. The gen- ogical interviews conducted in this research dealt arily with relatives critical in defining the type kinship terminology. I The classification of kinship systems used in this study is the one proposed by Robert H. Lowie (1928). On the basis of the terminological usages in the pa- rental generation, he defined four types of kinship sys- tems: generation, bifurcate merging, lineal, and bi- furcate collateral. In generation terminology, one term is used for all male relatives and another term for all female relatives in the parental generation. In bi- furcate merging terminology there is a single term for father and father's brother and a single term for mother and mother's sister, but father's sister and mother's brother have separate terms. The lineal type of terminology distinguishes father from father's brother and mother's brother (who are designated by a single term) and mother from mother's sister and father's sister (who are also referred to by a single term). Bi- furcate collateral terminology has six distinct terms for parents and their siblings. Lowie's four types "can be applied to any trio of kinsmen in the same genera- tion and of the same sex, provided the second is a collateral relative of the first in the same line of de- scent and the third is related to Ego in the same man- ner as the second except for a difference in the sex of the connecting relative" (Murdock, 1949, p. 142). THE TERMINOLOGICAL SYSTEM The standard or aboriginal Washo kinship terminol- ogy is given in table 1 (pp. 356-357). The standard terminology is still used by the majority of modern Washo. It is a generation type of terminology in ego's generation and a bifurcate collateral type in the first ascending and first descending generations. The morphophonemic analysis of kinship terms in table 1 is by William H. Jacobsen. The first column lists a number for each term; these numbers are the same as the ones used in the diagram of the standard Washo consanguineal kinship system appearing on fig- ure 1. The second column gives the English transla- tion for each term. The third column presents the singular form with the prefix indicating first person possessive. The final column gives the morphopho- nemically basic form of the stem. If the stem is pre- ceded by a hyphen, this indicates that it must always take a possessive prefix even if the possessor is indi- cated by a preceding noun or independent pronoun. The terms are given in approximately the order used by Lowie (1939). All cousins are called older and younger brother or sister depending upon whether ego's parent is older or younger than the parent of ego's cousin. The rela- tive ages of ego and his cousin do not affect the choice of terms; hence, a person may call a chronologically older cousin "younger brother,' provided that his parent is older than his cousin's parent. Kroeber (1917) says that cousins are called older or younger siblings ac- cording to their own ages. This point was thoroughly checked with a number of informants and they all agree that terms applied to cousins depend on the relative ages of parents and parents' siblings rather than on the ages of ego and his cousins. Since Kroeber's [ 355 ] ANTHROPOLOGICAL RECORDS TABLE 1 Consanguineal and Affinal Relatives Term English Singular with first Stem No. person poss. prefix Parent and child class 1. father digoy9 -g6'y 2. mother dil'a la 3. parent di ?milu - _malu 4. parent dityeLu -e-Lu 5. son diijam -ja-m 6. daughter digamu? -gjamu9 7. children digar'mig -gaUMig Sibling class 8. older brother, half-brother, cousin dia'-tu ?a tu 9. older sister, half-sister, cousin dif vlsa 10. younger brother, half-brother, cousin dibeyu -beyu 11. younger sister, half-sister, cousin diwftsuk -wff sug 12. distant male relative or friend, alternate term for cousin (m. sp.) dikMflu or - Milu diMilu 13. distant female relative or friend, alternate term for cousin (m. sp.) di?ulisawlam - sawlam 14. distant male relative or friend, alternate term for cousin (w. sp.) diOulimele'liwi? . . . 15. distant female relative or friend, alternate term for cousin (w. sp.) disu - su Grandparent and grandchild class 16. father's father dibaba? -ba'ba? 17. son's child (m. sp.) laba pa? -baba? 18. mother's father di?elel - ?elel 19. daughter's child (m. sp.) le?eleli? - ?elel 20. father's mother di?ama? - ?ama? 21. son's child (w. sp.) la?a'ma? - ?ama? 22. mother's mother dig iu -gA7U 23. daughter's child (w. sp.) leg iyi? -gI ?U 24. father's mother's sister, mother's mother's sister dibf1-b 25. sister's child's child (w. sp.) lebkf1yi? -bOlt 26. father's father's sister, mother's father's sister disama? -sama? 27. brother's child's child (w. sp.) lasa'ma? -sama? 28. father's father's brother disaksak -saksag 29. brother's son's child (m. sp.) lasaksagi? -saksag 30. mother's father's brother di?e6bu - ebu 31. brother's daughter's child (m. sp.) lej-ou? ?e9bu 32. father's mother's brother, mother's mother's brother dito6o -to"o 33. sister's child's child (m. sp.) lato6yi? -to"o Great-grandparent and great-grandchild class 34. relative of third ascending generation dipisew -Iisew 35. relative of third descending generation lepi'sewi -isew Uncle and nephew class 36. father's brother diews'i? - ? 4wgi9 37. brother's child (m. sp.) dima9Ea -ma?sa? 38. mother's brother dida"a -da'a 39. sister's child dima-gu -ma-gu 40. father's sister diya& ? -ya? 41. brother's child (w. sp.) disemuk -semug 42. mother's sister disa'sa - sasa? 356 FREED: CHANGING WASHO KINSHIP TABLE 1 (continued) Term English Singular with first Stem No. person poss. prefix Parent-in-law and child-in-law class 43. parent-in-law layuk -ayuk 44. son-in-law dibu9dzjali9? bu9dijali9 45. daughter-in-law leyes -iyeg 46. child's spouse's parents lamik amtg Sibling-in-law class 47. wife' s brother diwladut -wAladut 48. husband's brother dime 9ewsi? -me ewsi9 49. sister's husband didamaw -damaw 50. brother's wife (m. sp.) dimadsaa? -masasa? 51. husband's sister, brother's wife (w. sp.) diya"3il -ya,gil Spouse class 52. husband dibumeli0 bume'li? 53. husband di9me "s' e s 54. wife dimlaya? -mla ya? or -imlaya9 a = 0 0 A- = 28 26 16 A=O 4- 0 A 0 20 32 24 3 4 A 0 &_ 30 26 1 8 0= O 0 A 0 22 3 2 2 4 a 36 A 0 8 9 10 11 0 40 A0 8 9 1 0 I 1 A = 0 I 1 2 (0) 8 (y) I0 EGO 9 (0) I I (y) 0 O 0 AO0 a 0 A 0 6 0 37T 39 3 . 39 (M) 37 5 6 39 1 06 el a a AI al C1 1 a1^ ol a o a O lo A 19 31 33 29 31 33 (m) 29 31 17 (M) 19 33 (M) 27 25 27 25 (w) 27 21(w) 23 25 (W) (0)- OLDER 0 (Y)- YOUNGER 3 35 I 38 a 0 8 9 10 I I i1 0to a 29 31 33 27 25 I 0 42 A& 0 8 9 1 0 1 1 & 0 a 0 411 la O a a O 29 31 33 27 25 (M) - MEN SPEAKING (W)- WOMEN SPEAKING Figure 1. The standard Washo consanguineal kinship system. Triangles denote males; circles denote females. 357 i a r @~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ F 00 &= 0 r?? I I ANTHROPOLOGICAL RECORDS information came from a single informant, he may have been misinformed on this point. There is, how- ever, a tendency among younger people to call cousins older or younger siblings on the basis of their own ages rather than the a'ges of parents and their siblings. This trend is clearly visible in the analysis of termi- nological usages given in table 3. It is a logical de- velopment since the introduction of schools, calendars, and written records of births. Before then, relative ages of individuals of different nuclear families would not ordinarily be known if the persons were of approxi- mately the same age. Six distinct terms exist for father, father's brother, father's sister, mother, mother's brother, and mother's sister. Brother's child is distinguished from sister's child; both are distinguished from own children. Hus- bands and wives of aunts and uncles are not considered relatives. All my informants were quite definite on this point. Lowie (1939) and Siskin (MS) say that mother's sister's husband is called by the same term as father's brother, and father's brother's wife by the same term as mother's sister. This was true when two brothers married two sisters, as occasionally happened. In such cases, mother's sister's husband is the same person as father's brother; and father's brother's wife is the same person as mother's sister. Lowie' s information may have been obtained from the descendant of such a marriage. Terminological usages between ego and all relatives of the second and third ascending and descending gen- erations are reciprocal. For example, ego calls his mother's father di?elel (my mother's father), and this relative calls him le?eleli? (my daughter's child). Mor- phophonemically, the stem of these two words is the same (-?elel). The term, le?eleli?, may be translated approximately as "the one whose mother's father I am." There are apparently no differences in terms of reference and address. Kroeber (1907; 1917) and Lowie (1939) have not reported any; and I have found none in the course of my interviewing. William Jacobsen, who is currently making a study of the Washo language, also corroborates this. The extent of the Washo kinship system is elastic, but usually the range of recognized relatives is not extensive. Second cousins are brothers and sisters, but relationships are rarely traced that far. The chil1 dren of grandparents' siblings are properly aunts and uncles (e.g., father's father's brother's daughter may be called father's sister, for father and his father's brother's daughter call each other brother and sister), but these relatives are usually not called aunts and uncles. Often my informants did not know the identi of the children of their grandparents' siblings; when they did know these persons, they sometimes called them by general terms meaning "my friend or dista relative.' Occasionally, however, a person would ca a child of a grandparent's sibling by the appropriate* uncle or aunt term. Since the Washo are forbidden to marry relatives, a minute tracing of relationships would make it difficult to find a mate. This may ac- count for the infrequency with which distant relatives are recognized. POLITE AFFINAL TERMS The Washo use a set of polite, teknonymous term for most affinal relatives. These are given in table One informant gave two polite terms for sister's hu band. He was called di9i'sa bume li? (my older sist husband) as well as dimagu dagoy9 (my sister's c father). My notes contain only one polite term for brother's wife (my brother's child's mother); I have not recorded the logically possible term "my older [or younger] brother's wife.' This suggests that the use of descriptive terms with "mother" in them may be more strongly prescribed than those containing "father." On the other hand, my informants may si have failed to mention the descriptive term "my old [or younger] brother's wife." Since I did not explic investigate all the possible descriptive terms which may logically be used for affinal relatives, table 2 not give a complete list of terms. Nevertheless, h essentials of the system are presented. TABLE 2 Polite Affinal Terms English Washo Literal translation son-in-law ............ le?eleli7 dagoy? (m. sp.); daughter's child's father; leg ?yi? dagoy? (w. sp.) daughter's child's father daughter-in-law ........ labapa? dala? (m. sp.); son's child's mother; legui9yi? dala" (w. sp.) son's child's mother father-in-law .......... dibume&li? dagoy? (w. sp.) husband's father wife's brother ......... diga0mi: dada?a children's mother's brother husband's brother ...... diijam de?ew9i9 son's father's brother sister's husband ....... dima gu dagoy9 sister's child's father di'?isa bume6li? older sister's husband brother's wife ......... dimas dala? (m. sp.) brother's child's mother brother's wife ......... digemuk dala? (w. sp.) brother's child's mother j .i I f 358 FREED: CHANGING WASHO EINSIEP ALTERNATE TERMS T erminological change was determined by compar- modern usages with the standard kinship system. the course of seventy genealogical interviews, at st a few variant kinship usages could probably have n collected during aboriginal times. However, the ditions of modern Washo life make variant usages genealogical interviews almost inevitable. Some in- nants speak Washo poorly and may guess at terms; ers do not understand English well and may misun- stand the investigator's questions. The problem is aseparate the alternate usages due to mistakes and sunderstandings from the ones which may indicate the terminological system is changing. Two criteria are available for this purpose. First, usages arising from change in the terminological sys- tem should occur more frequently than other "alter- nate" usages which appear to represent erroneous in- formation. Second, the alternate terms of the new, emerging kinship system should form an internally consistent system. Analysis of the Washo genealogical data showed the following alternate usages. 1. Thirteen informants called some or all of their cousins by terms distinct from the sibling terms. The terms used are numbered 12, 13, 14, and 15 in table 1. 2. Five informants called their brother's children and sister's children by a single term. TABLE 3 Incidence of Washo Kinship Usages in Ego's and Adjacent Generations Age group of informants Kinship usage* 10-19 20-29 30-39 40-49 50-59 60-69 70-79 80-89 (15)t (13) (7) (12) (8) (8) (5) (2) Siblings Standard ............... 12 12 7 12 8 8 5 2 Term unknown .......... 2 Miscellaneous ..... ..... 2 1 Cousins Standard ....... ........ 2 3 4 8 7 7 4 By own age ............. 4 4 1 1 1 Alternate ....... ........ 2 3 1 2 2 2 1 Term unknown .......... 9 6 2 1 Miscellaneous ..... ..... 1 2 Uncles Standard ............... 6 11 6 10 7 6 5 2 Alternate .............. 3 Term unknown .......... 7 1 1 Miscellaneous .......... 1 Aunts Standard ..........8..... 8 4 10 7 7 4 2 Term unknown .......... 6 1 1 Miscellaneous 2 Nephews and nieces Standard ....... ........ 3 8 4 11 8 8 5 2 Alternate ....... ....... 1 2 2 Term unknown .......... 3 3 Miscellaneous ........ 1 1 1 Father and mother Standard ............... 12 13 7 12 8 8 5 2 Term unknown. 3 Son and daughter Standard .1 9 5 9 7 5 4 2 *The meanings of "standard" and "by own age" are clear from the text. "Term unknown" means the informant did not know the term. "Alternate" refers to the terms of the new terminological system. "Miscellaneous" includes all alternate usages regarded as nonsignificant; these are listed in the text. If a single informant gave different kinds of usages (e.g., standard and alternate) for a single kind of relative (e.g., cousins), he was counted twice. If he gave more than one different kind of "miscellaneous" response for any one kind of relative (as for example to call one aunt "grandmother's sister" and the other aunt "great-grandparent"), he was counted only once. tThe number in parentheses is the number of informants in the age group. 359 ANTHROPOLOGICAL RECORDS 3. Three informants called their mother's brother and father's brother by a single term. Two alternate usages were given by two inform- ants: mother's brother's child was called brother's child, and older brother was called younger brother. A considerable number of alternate usages were given by only one informant: father's sister was called grandmother's sister, father's sister was called great- grandparent, mother's sister was called grandmother's sister, father's brother was called older brother, brother's son was called younger brother, mother's sister's son was called sister's child, and older sister was called younger sister. One woman used the male speaking term for brother's child instead of the fe- male term. One informant used brother's child (man speaking) for sister's son and brother's son, and sis- ter's child for sister's daughter and brother's daugh- ter. This is what Schmitt and Schmitt (n.d., p. 42) call a "loan translation," that is, the Washo terms have been equated with the English nephew and niece terms. The three alternate usages which occur most fre- quently appear to represent change in the terminologi- cal system. They form a consistent system: the new terminology is of the lineal type in all generations. The alternate cousin terms and the terminological merging of brother's child and sister's child show a significantly higher frequency than all other alternate usages. The merging of father's brother and mother's brother occurs only slightly more than other, nonsig- nificant alternate usages; but it is included with the other two primarily because it conforms to the trend toward a lineal terminological system in the three generations under study. The alternate terms appear to represent a new sys- tem of kinship terminology rather than survivals from an older system. From the breakdown of Washo kin- ship usages given in table 3, it can be seen that the alternate uncle and nephew-niece terms are used by individuals in the younger age groups; and this leads to the inference that they are recent. The alternate cousin terms are spread rather evenly throughout the generations, but they too appear to be part of a new terminological system. This is indicated from the terms used for children of cousins. Older people gen- erally use the terms meaning brother's child and sis- ter's child in spite of the fact that they no longer call their cousins siblings. Younger people tend to use the cousin terms for the children of cousins. The terms for cousins apparently are first changed in ego's gen- eration, and the change is then extended to the first descending generation. Thus the use of the alternate cousin terms is becoming more firmly embedded in the terminology. Another reason for believing that the cousin terms are part of a new kinship system is that the older people who use them state that sibling terms are also correct whereas the younger people are un- aware that sibling terms may be used. The greater frequency of the alternate cousin terms compared to the alternate nephew-niece and uncle terms and their greater age as indicated by their occurrence among older persons is in accord with Dole's observation that when terminological patterns change, the cousin terms change first (Dole, MS, p. 428). The Washo data indicate that terms of the first descending gen- eration may be the next to change, followed by changes in the parental generation. Most people who use the standard cousin terms de- clare that the alternate cousin terms are incorrect. However, the older people who use the alternate coui terms handle the language expertly and can speak as authoritatively on the culture as those who use the standard terminology. When asked the reason for us alternate cousin terms, these older people usually a that they just prefer them. One man said that he us the alternate cousin term because he disliked his c but was fond of his brother who was dead. He did want to apply the term for a relative whom he liked one he disliked. On the other hand, another inform said he used alternate cousin terms for male cousi because he was friendly with them (the cousin terms also mean "friend"). Another informant said she us the alternate cousin terms because these relatives not her "real" siblings. Apparently, no rules govern the use of standard or alternate cousin terms; it ap- pears to be a matter of personal preference. In general, the younger people (10-19 years of a who use alternate cousin terms do not know that sib-, ling terms are also correct. This does not seem to cause conversational confusion. One boy told me that his cousins called him brother whereas he always called them cousin. He found the situation amusing, but apparently saw no conflict in the usages. Another boy recalled that he had heard older people call the cousins siblings, but said that he never did. There is no noticeable tendency for a person who uses one of the alternate terms to use any of the others. Only one informant used the alternate lineal terms for both cousins and uncles. He had no nephe and nieces and so his usage for these relatives co not be determined. RESIDENCE RULES Washo residence rules have undergone no discer changes since the end of the aboriginal period. The minor differences between the findings of Lowie (193 Curtis (1926), and myself are probably not due to change. Instead they appear to arise from two circ stances: (1) Washo residence patterns are difficult characterize since there is no residence rule which must be strictly followed; and (2) Lowie and Curtis used only a few informants whereas my data were gathered from a fairly large number of people. The residence patterns reported by a large number of sons might reasonably be expected to show greater variation than the normative statements of a few in- formants, especially in the absence of a compelling rule. Lowie reports residence as matrilocal until the death of the wife's parents, when the couple burned the house and moved. Another of his informants de- scribes residence as matrilocal or patrilocal with a slight preference for the former (Lowie, 1939, p. 3 Curtis reports initial matrilocality. After a few we the couple returned to the husband's family, but of the couples lived in both places alternately (C 1926, p. 97). These foregoing statements agree reasonably we with most of the data on residence which I collecte However, the situation is more complicated than L and Curtis report. The 70 genealogies and associat brief life histories contain information on 37 first marriages of persons of all ages. Fourteen were tially matrilocal. After a few years, usually follo the birth of the first child, the couple shifted resi- dence. Of the 14 initially matrilocal marriages, 7 I 360 FREED: CHIANGING WASHO KINSHIP bsequently patrilocal, 8 neolocal, and 1 matrilocal. have counted a single marriage more than once if e couple shifted residence more than once. For ex- iple, if a couple lived for two years with the wife's rents, then for some time with the husband's family, d finally by themselves, they were counted as ini- FIly matrilocal and subsequently patrilocal and neo- cal. Of the first marriages not initially matrilocal, ; were patrilocal, 10 matrilocal (permanently and t just initially), and 9 neolocal. p The various kinds of residence arrangements are attered randomly with respect to the age of inform- iS. This is a critical point, for the neolocal mar- es were not specifically reported by the earlier stigators. Although Lowie says that a couple moved e the death of the wife's parents, he does not speci- the new location of the couple. Yet the fact that neo- al marriages occur as frequently among older people among younger indicates that they are not a recent ovation. Data on 11 second and subsequent marriages are ained in the genealogies and life histories. Three ese were initially matrilocal; and of these, 1 was sequently patrilocal and 2 neolocal. Of the second riages not initially matrilocal, 3 were patrilocal, atrilocal, and 5 neolocal. As was true of first riages, the various kinds of residence arrange- ts of second and subsequent marriages were dis- ted randomly with respect to the age of informants. To trace the history of a number of Washo mar- es, as has been done above, describing them as rilocal or matrilocal or neolocal without regard for length of time spent under the various rules, gives mewhat distorted picture of Washo residence, for mphasizes unduly the "neolocal" residences. Actual- almost all couples live near their parents or other e relatives the greater part of their lives. Occa- ly, a family may live for a few years with no e relatives near by. For this reason some mar- es have been classed as neolocal. In the matter of dence rules, the normative statements of Lowie's, is', and my informants give a better picture of essential nature of Washo residence than a statis- count. Residence may best be described as bi- There is no evidence that the rule of residence different in prewhite times. DESCENT AND INHERITANCE scent was basically bilateral. Personal property not inherited, for it had to be destroyed at death. -nut picking rights descended bilaterally. A person had picking rights on his spouse's land, but these s were terminated at the death of the spouse. Cer- offices may have descended from father to son. ett (1917, p. 9) says that each village had a heredi- chief. In former times, the office passed from r to the eldest son; more recently, he says, the e was filled by the selection of the most appropri- dividual regardless of relationship. Barrett also s that the rabbit chief was a hereditary official, s is disputed by Lowie. Neither shamans nor pe charmers inherited their positions. e aboriginal Washo system of inheritance fits well the American bilateral system and has changed slightly since the coming of the whites. One change people can now dispose of their property by a This is particularly important with regard to in- surance policies. Some bitterness has been caused by beneficiaries who refuse to share insurance money with their siblings, since the latter would have inherited equally under the old system. Another change is that wives and husbands can now inherit from each other, and a third change is that parents can inherit money from their children if the latter die first. In aboriginal times, only consanguine relatives inherited, and these in descending order. KINSHIP GROUPS The Washo lacked sibs, lineages, and clans. The family was usually nuclear, often with a few, more distant relatives attached. The Washo formerly prac- ticed polygyny and therefore possibly had some poly- gynous families. Whether these reached a frequency of 20 per cent, a level which Murdock uses to distin- guish between societies with polygynous families (1949, p. 28) and those with monogamous families, cannot now be determined. My informants regard the old Washo family as nuclear, and it will be so classified here. The modern Washo family is nuclear but usually in- cludes a few, more distant relatives. The Washo formerly had a weak system of agamous moieties whose only apparent function was to oppose each other in games at the pine-nut dance. One moiety was called pewlelel ldyadi9, which means roughly "those who camp on the east side" (of the camp circle) or dip'ek gumtanu, meaning "people of the white paint." Lowie gives a third name, palaa'si (Lowie's transcription). The other principal moiety vlas called ta'ilelel tayadi9, which can be translated approximately as "those who camp on the west side" (of the camp circle). Members of this moiety painted themselves red and were also called sawasaij gumianu, "people of the red paint." Members of a third "moiety" were called dayaIsilga&s l6yadi9 (also dewisilga s iyadi9), meaning "those who camp in the corner" (of the camp circle) or "those who camp in between" (the other two moieties). They lived between the east and west moie- ties in the camp circle and were divided between them for purposes of playing games. This third moiety seems to have had the sole function of supplying additional members to the teams representing the other two moie- ties. Despite this third group, the system was funda- mentally dual (Lowie, 1939, p. 304). The moiety system does not exist today. A person belonged to the moiety of his father, which often was his mother's moiety also. Nancy Emm re- ports that when persons of different moieties married, they could join whichever moiety they wished. Hank Pete claims that a woman joined her husband's moiety. Lowie says that in the hand game, a man could leave his own moiety and join his opponents if they were luckier (Lowie, 1939, p. 304). Two kinds of kin groups that frequently occur in bilateral societies are demes and kindreds. The deme, says Murdock (1949, pp. 62-63), . . . is most clearly observable in the endogamous local community which is not segmented by unilinear consanguineal groupings of kinsmen. By virtue of the rule or strong preference for local endogamy, the inhabitants are necessarily related to one another through intermarriage, although they cannot always trace their exact kinship connections. They are con- sequently bound to one another not only by common 361 m ANTHROPOLOGICAL RECORDS residence but also by consanguinity, as is, in fact, usually specifically recognized. Within such a group the only social structuring is commonly into fami- lies, which may be of either nuclear, polygamous, or extended type. Except for family ties, the strong- est sense of identification is usually with the com- munity as a whole, which is viewed as a consan- guineal unit in relation to other communities in a manner quite comparable to the attitude toward one's own sib in a unilinear society. Murdock believes that the Washo may have had demes (1949, p. 63). This would be important to know, since demes are thought to exert an influence on kin- ship terminology. They are associated with kinship terminology of the generation type in ego's generation only (Murdock, 1949, pp. 158-161). I endeavored to discover whether the Washo had had demes and could find no evidence of their former existence. Murdock may have based his opinion on a sentence in Barrett: "The village community is the largest division and each village is entirely distinct from all others" (1917, p. 8). From the context, I interpret this to mean only that each village was politically independent. The prin- cipal feature of the deme, the fact that it is an endo- gamous community viewed by its members "as a con- sanguineal unit in relation to other communities," was apparently lacking among the Washo. Lowie's descrip- tion of a Washo village would deny the existence of demes. His informant said that the neighbors who lived about thirty feet away were not kin (1939, p. 303). Demes clearly do not exist among the Washo today. The kindred is the commonest type of bilateral kin- ship group. In our society, it includes that group of near relatives who are expected to attend weddings, funerals, graduations, holiday dinners, and family re- unions. Members of kindreds visit freely and support one another when they are in difficulty. Kindreds in other societies have comparable characteristics and functions (Murdock, 1949, pp. 56-57). The Washo do not appear to have groups of rela- tives which satisfy these criteria. Curing ceremonies, the girl's puberty dance, and funerals are attended by all interested Washo; and relatives outside the nuclear family seem to have no special functions. A Washo ex- pects help from members of his nuclear family, but more distant relatives have no particular obligations. In talking with the Washo about relatives, I get no particular feeling of a group of kinfolk larger than tl nuclear family. Informants will mention this relative or that one as being particularly close, but make no! mention of a group of kin standing up for them agai another kin group or being obligated to aid them. Th modern Washo are best regarded as lacking kindred The earliest evidence regarding Washo social organi- zation is Barrett's statement that "the social organi-- zation of the Washo is primarily based upon the fam unit" (1917, p. 8). This is certainly true today and there is no evidence that the situation has changed since the end of the aboriginal period. MARRIAGE Curtis (1926, p. 97) says that polygyny was comm and by no means exceptional. Barrett (1917, p.9) s9 In former times polygamy was practiced, there being no restrictions placed upon a man as to wh his second or other succeeding wife should be. the other hand, monogamy was quite as prevalent as polygamy. Lowie reports that both sororal and nonsororal poly existed. Lowie's data show a preference for the so form. He reports an incident in which a rancher as a Washo why he did not have two wives. The Indian plied, "My wife has not got a sister" (Lowie, 1939, 309). The same preference for sororal polygyny is ported by my informants. The reason given is that strange women fight. Murdock classifies polygynous societies which are not exclusively sororal as non- sororal (1949, p. 140). I have followed his system therefore classify aboriginal Washo marriage as non sororal polygyny. The modern Washo have abandon polygyny because it is forbidden by law. Both the sororate and the levirate were formerly practiced to some degree. Lowie says that the levir and sororate were correct but not compulsory (1939, p. 310). Curtis declares that a widow was bound to marry her husband's brother if he desired her (192 p. 97). My informants generally agree with Lowie. sororate and levirate are no longer followed. .1 .i .i I I 362 III. ALTERNATE TERMS AND ROLE BEHAVIOR This chapter is devoted to determining the causes the emerging system of kinship terminology. Before proceed to the explanation which seems to account r the Washo data most satisfactorily, three other lanations will be considered. The first is that the ernate terms are due to a process which Schmitt Schmitt (n. d.) call loan translation, that is, the Washo terms are adapted to the English kinship tem. This explanation deserves attention because alternate Washo terminological usages form a eal type of kinship terminology resembling the Eng- h kinship system. The case for loan translation is strongest in the ental generation because the two separate terms father's brother and mother's brother have been uced to a single term which may be equated with English term "uncle." But the terms for aunts ye not undergone a similar merging, and it is fair ask why loan translation should be restricted to les. The use of loan translation as an adequate explana- encounters further difficulties with regard to the rnate cousin and nephew-niece terms. The process loan translation should result in a single Washo m being used for cousins; instead, the Washo use distinct terms. Furthermore, one of the inform- s who uses alternate cousin terms speaks no Eng- and another speaks only a few words. These in- mants could not be directly affected by the English minological system. In the first descending genera- the process of loan translation should alter the ho terminology so that a single term is applied to hews and another to nieces. But this has not hap- ed; in the emerging terminology, all siblings' chil- n are lumped under a single term, thereby ignor- the sex distinction between nephews and nieces. It ms clear that loan translations do not in themselves uately account for alternate Washo terminological es. This is not to say that the Washos' knowledge of American kinship system has no effect on Washo hip terminology. It may be one of several causes the alternate terms. But the new Washo terminology not due solely to loan translation, for the new terms not agree closely enough with the English system. und only one clear case of loan translation: one rmant called his nephews by one term and his es by another. This usage agrees exactly with the lish system of terminology, a circumstance one ht reasonably demand before using loan translation an explanation of terminological change. A second possible explanation is that the alternate s arise from unusual circumstances whereby a tive assumes a role ordinarily played by another tive and is therefore called by the kinship term opriate for the assumed role instead of by the ascribed by his genealogical position. I found one case of this kind among the Washo: a woman ed a cousin by the term "older sister" instead of genealogically correct term "younger sister" be- se they were raised in the same house and her in was actually ten years older than she. The age I discrepancy of ten years, together with being raised in the same nuclear family, made the term "younger sister" seem inappropriate. The woman knew that younger sister was the correct term, but preferred to use older sister. This kind of modification of ter- minological usages appears to be quite rare among the Washo. When children were reared by an aunt or grandmother, they always called these relatives by the correct terms instead of mother; and stepfathers were never called father. The Washo seem quite or- thodox in the use of their kinship terminology. A third possible explanation of the new Washo kin- ship system is Murdock' s theory of the evolution of social organization. Murdock says that social organi- zation is a semi-independent system which changes according to internal dynamics of its own. Of the ma- jor elements of social organization, which -include the system of kinship terminology, kinds of kinship groups, rules of residence and descent, and forms of marriage, the one least susceptible to influences from outside the social organization is the terminological system. Rules of descent and kinds of kin groups are also relatively immune to the influence of external factors. Types of marriage can change directly owing to external influ- ences, but "the impact of a change in marriage upon other parts of the social structure is usually relatively slight" (Murdock, 1949, p. 201). The aspect of social organization particularly sensitive to outside influences is the rule of residence. Rules of descent and kinds of kinship groups usually change after the residence rule. In brief, change in social organization begins with modification of the residence rule and ends with the adaptive changes in the system of kinship termi- nology. The features of aboriginal Washo social structure which are reflected in the standard terminology are bilocal residence, nonsororal polygyny, and bilateral descent, with the nuclear family constituting the larg- est kinship group. Their presumed effects upon kinship terminology as given by Murdock (1949) are as follows. Bilocal residence tends to be associated with kinship terminology of the generation type. Washo standard terminology is of the generation type in ego's genera- tion only. Nonsororal polygyny tends to be associated with kinship terminology of the bifurcate collateral type. Washo standard terminology is bifurcate collat- eral in the first ascending and first descending gen- erations. When the nuclear family stands "in majestic isolation, as it does in our own society" (Murdock, 1949, p. 156), it tends to be associated with kinship terminology of the lineal type. The Washo family is nuclear, but it does not stand in majestic isolation. Murdock does not deal explicitly with this kind of a situation. However, he notes that extended families depend on the prevailing rule of residence and exert an influence on kinship terminology in accord with it (1949, p. 153). The Washo family and residence rules result in an alignment of kinsmen rather similar to that which occurs in groups with bilocal extended fami- lies; therefore, the family and residence rules taken together may be said to exert an influence in the di- rection of a generation type of kinship terminology. In [ 363 ] iI ANTHROPOLOGICAL RECORDS summary, the standard Washo kinship terminology may be thought of as a compromise between a generation type and bifurcate collateral type, as might be expected from the divergent influences arising from the social structure. The new Washo terminological system is lineal in ego's generation and the first descending generation. In the parental generation, the uncle terms are lineal but the terms for aunts remain bifurcate collateral. Can the changes in social structure, namely, the de- mise of the moiety system, the loss of the sororate and levirate, and the shift from nonsororal polygyny to monogamy adequately account for the terminological changes? The first two changes in social structure appear to have no connection with the terminological changes. Exogamous moieties tend to be correlated with the bi- furcate merging type of terminology; but nonexogamous moities do not have this effect, for they produce no regular alignments of kinsmen. Murdock classes socie- ties with nonexogamous, unilineal kinship groups as bi- lateral (1949, pp. 161-162). The Washo moiety system was agamous and therefore exerted no noticeable influ- ence on the terminological system. Thus its loss is probably not significant with regard to the changes that have taken place in the kinship terminology. If the sororate and levirate have an influence on kinship ter- rrinology, it is presumably toward the bifurcate merg- ing type (Sapir, 1916). Since Washo standard terminol- ogy is not bifurcate merging, the sororate and levirate were never reflected in the terminology, and their lapsing has no apparent connection with the changes in the system of kinship terminology. The loss of nonsororal polygyny has been the only significant change with regard to the changes in the kinship terminology. Nonsororal polygyny is associated with kinship terminology of the bifurcate collateral type. Its loss therefore should result in some modifi- cation in the first ascending and first descending gen- erations. In part, this has happened; bifurcate colla- teral terminology is disappearing for the uncle terms and in the first descending generation. However, the aunt terms have not yet merged. The emerging termi- nological system in ego's generation cannot be explained by the change in marriage arrangements, for the stand- ard terms in ego's generation are not bifurcate collat- eral and therefore never reflected nonsororal polygyny. At best, the disappearance of nonsororal polygyny ap- pears to be a factor in roughly one-half of the changes in the Washo terminological system. It helps explain the new terms for uncles and for nephews and nieces. It does not explain why the terms in ego's generation are changing or why the terms for mother's sister and father's sister remain distinct. Although changes in marriage patterns probably help to undermine the bifurcate collateral terms, they do not explain why the lineal type of terminology is being adopted instead of the generation type. The only ele- ments of social structure which Murdock gives as tend- ing to be associated with the lineal type of kinship ter- minology are neolocal residence and the isolated nu- clear family (Murdock, 1949, pp. 152, 157). The Washo lack these. Modern Washo social structure is more in accord with a generation type of terminology, for Washo residence is bilocal. Therefore, while changes in Washo social structure may set the stage for some of the ter- minological changes, they do not account for the speci- fic form taken by the terminological modifications. In short, Murdock's theory does not provide a fully ade- quate explanation of the changes in the Washo kinship system although it is considerably more helpful than the other two theories discussed above. SUGGESTED EXPLANATION FOR TERMINOLOGICAL CHANGES The hypothesis here proposed to explain the alter- nate Washo kinship terms is that changes occurring outside of social organization can affect the termino- logical system without first modifying the residence rule or other elements of social structure. This hy- pothesis is based on the assumption that kinship ter- minology is closely correlated with patterned norms of behavior, or "roles." This assumption is most rea- sonable, for, as Murdock notes, it accords "with the overwhelming testimony of the data surveyed for the present study, and with the experience and the de- clared or admitted views of nearly all competent an- thropological authorities" (1949, p. 112). If this assumj tion is provisionally accepted, the proposed hypothesis& may be restated: role behavior and its associated SysT" tem of kinship terminology may be directly affected by cultural changes without any changes necessarily takirn place in the formal social structure. Or we may use the terminology proposed by Raymond Firth and say that within any given type of "'social structure" many different forms of "'social organization" may exist (Firth, 1951, pp. 39-40; 1954). The principal difference between this hypothesis and Murdock' s theory is in the elaboration of the role con~ cept. Murdock does not explicitly deal with roles al- though he implies the concept when he speaks of simi- larities and differences between kin-types. Murdock distinguishes five kinds of similarities and differences (1949, pp. 136- 137): Coincidence: a similarity between two kin-types owing to the probability that the members of both are the same persons, as can happen as a result of certain social equalizers. Sororal polygyny, for example, tends to equate WiSi with Wi. Proximity: a similarity or dissimilarity in spatial relations. For example, matrilocal residence, by bringing Mo and MoSi together as close neigh~ bors or even actual housemates, operates as a social equalizer to make more likely their desigo nation by a single classificatory term, and by separating FaSi spatially from both of them oper ates as a social differential to favor the applicau tion of a special kinship term to her. Participation: a similarity or dissimilarity in gro membership. Thus patrilineal descent places Br and Da in the same lineage, sib, or moiety and1 SiDa in a separate group, thereby promoting ex, tension of the term for Da to BrDa and differe tiation of the term for SiDa. Analogy: a similarity relative to a parallel relati ship. Extension of the term "mother" to MoSi, for example, acts as a social equalizer in the case of MoSiDa, increasing her likelihood of being called "sister" even under patrilineal de- scent when Si and MoSiDa are usually neither sibmates nor neighbors. Immateriality: a negative similarity resulting from the functional unimportance of the relatives of two kin-types, whereby a sufficient basis for 364 FREED: CHANGING WASHO KINSHP differentiating them is lacking. Immateriality appears chiefly with respect to distant relatives. In the English kinship system, for example, it operates as an equalizer to favor the extension of the term "cousin" to various distant relatives of little importance, without reference to distinc- tions of sex, generation, or collaterality. Murdock' s similarities and differences are aspects of role behavior, but they are aspects which are strongly determined by elements of formal social structure. This being so, he can trace the effects of social struc- ture upon systems of kinship terminology without deal- ig with role behavior, for it is so closely tied to the formal social structure as to lack the characteristics an independent variable. This thesis suggests that les are characterized by many more qualities than those listed by Murdock and that some of them vary considerably within the limits set by a given type of social structure. Cultural changes can therefore cause rminological change by altering role behavior without .ecting the formal social structure. The role concept has been used in various ways by her authors. Radcliffe-Brown (1935) once argued that parent discrepancies between social structures and rminological systems in some Californian tribes were e to the fact that systems of terminology correlate th "social usage" rather than gross social structure. cliffe-Brown's social usage seems roughly equiva- nt to role behavior. Role behavior has been used ex- icitly in two recent kinship studies: Schneider and oberts (1956) propose the concept of role to account r alternate usages in the Zuni kinship systems; and hneider and Homans (1955) suggest that alternate rms in the American kinship system, such as "fa- er," "dad," and "pop," reflect differences in role havior. The central hypothesis of this monograph erives directly from these two papers. From the hypothesis that roles and terms are close- correlated and are capable of being influenced by utural factors we may draw the following inferences egarding Washo role behavior and the emerging Washo ship system. Since cousins are being terminologi- ally distinguished from siblings, the roles for cousins d siblings should be significantly different. The role mother's brother should not be significantly different om the role of father's brother, and the role of bro- er's child should not differ significantly from the le of sister's child, for in both cases, kin-types ch are distinguished in the standard terminology e merged in the alternate terminological system. e roles associated with the rest of the standard kin- p terms should all differ significantly from one an- her because they have remained terminologically stinct. It is apparent that an explanation based on detailed omparisons of roles cannot use subjective assess- rits of similarities and differences between roles. technique for describing roles is required which elds data that can be treated statistically. Such a hnique, called the role profile test, was developed r this research. It is thought to give a more exact d sensitive picture of Washo role behavior than that ch may be obtained solely through observations and terviews, and the statistical analysis of the test pro- ols gives an objective measure of similarities and ferences in role behavior. The inferences presented above will be tested with ta derived from use of the role profile test. It will be seen that the data strongly support the foregoing inferences, thereby supporting the validity of the as- sumption of a close fit between role and term. The close correlation of role and term together with the fact that the Washo kinship system is changing in spite of a relatively stable social structure supports the hypothesis that roles may vary considefiably within the limits set by a given configuration of social struc- ture, the variation being due to causes which lie out- side of the social organization. THE ROLE PROFILE TEST The role profile test makes use of sixteen catego- ries for describing interpersonal behavior developed by Freedman, Leary, Ossorio, and Coffey (1951). I have slightly modified the categories and converted them into a questionnaire, which appears below. As con- ceived by Freedman and his associates, the sixteen categories were arranged in a circle. This emphasizes an important feature of the conceptual scheme. It has four nodal points: dominance, affiliation, submission, and hostility. These nodal points occur in the question- naire at Question 1 (dominance), Question 5 (affiliation), Question 9 (submission), and Question 13 (hostility). The questions between the nodes combine the nodal qualities in varying degrees. For example, "to teach" (Question 2) is a combination of dominance and affilia- tion; "to punish" (Question 14) is a combination of hos- tility and dominance. Questionnaire of the Role Profile Test 1. Which relative most often tries to tell you what to do? Which most often gives you orders (or bosses you)? 2. Which relative most often teaches you how to do something? Which one gives you advice or tells you his opinions? 3. Which relative is most likely to help you if you need it? 4. Which relative is most likely to feel bad and sympathize with you when something goes wrong? 5. Which relative is specially fond of you? 6. Which relative most often co5perates (works together) with you? 7. Which relative depends on you most and most often asks your help? 8. Which relative respects you the most? Which one asks your opinions? 9. Which relative obeys (minds) you if you tell him or her to do something? 10. Which relative is most eager for your ap- proval? 11. Which relative would be the most likely to say or think you did something wrong (or bad)? 12. Which relative nags you most? 13. Which relative disapproves of you and criti- cizes you most often? 14. Which relative punishes you or gets angry (or mad) if you don't mind or if you do something wrong (or bad)? 15. Which relative is most likely no refuse you help even if you need it pretty badly? 16. Which relative would be most likely not to want to have anything at all to do with you? The role profile test is administered as follows. 365 ANTHROPOLOGICAL RECORDS The informant is provided with slips of paper contain- ing Washo kinship terms written quasiphonetically for all the relatives he possesses in first ascending, ego's, and first descending generations. These, of course, differ from person to person. The informant is then asked to arrange the slips of paper in a column in response to each of the sixteen questions. The rela- tive ranking highest in the behavior questioned is to be placed at the top of the column; the remainder are to be ranked in descending order, with the one rank- ing lowest in the behavior in question to be placed at the bottom. The first few questions are for practice and designed to acquaint the informant with the kind of response desired. The investigator asks "which of your relatives weighs most . . . is tallest . . . is oldest" or some other similar question, and instructs the informant to arrange the slips of paper, helping him if necessary. Once the "set" of the experiment is established, the questionnaire is administered. The questions are explained to the informant, using ex- amples if necessary; they are not read mechanically. The informant's responses are noted for each question, and the paper slips are shuffled before the next ques- tion is given. The result is a test protocol ranking a person's relatives in each of the sixteen categories of interpersonal behavior. Several precautions must be observed if the test results are to attain their maximum reliability. First, the investigator must determine the opportunity the informant has had for knowing and interacting with the relatives to be included in the test. If there has been a reasonable opportunity for interacting with a relative, he is to be included in the test even if the informant has had little interaction with him. If there has been no opportunity for interaction, the relative should be excluded. For example, if a relative has lived close to the informant for many years, he is to be included even though the informant rarely sees him. In this case, the opportunity for interaction exists, and the fact that none has taken place may be an important feature of the role behavior. However, if a relative died when the informant was a baby, or lives at a great distance, or is feeble-minded, he is to be ex- cluded, for the informant has had no opportunity to interact with him. Second, the same interpreter should be used for all informants. This should not be taken too literally, for feuds and hard feelings can make the presence of particular interpreters unpleasant to informants. In addition, if the interpreter is related to the informant, this might tend to influence the informant's responses. It is probably best to use an interpreter who is not related to the informant. This precaution could not be observed for two Washo informants owing to the pre- vailing rules of courtesy. These two informants were slightly deaf and it was necessary to shout at them. Among the Washo, it is considered impolite for a person to shout at a nonrelative. Therefore, relatives had to be used as interpreters. Third, the testing situation should be standardized. This means that as few relatives as possible should be looking over the informant's shoulder while he is taking the test. An easy way to shed distracting rela- tives is to conduct the interview in an automobile. Fourth, the questions should be asked randomly. I suspect that there is some contagion from one question to the next. This is enhanced if, for example, all the questions probing dominance are asked one after the other. By randomizing the questions, the investigator can break up a developing pattern in an informant's responses. This precaution was not followed in the present study because its importance was not realized until the field work was almost completed. Finally, the sample tested should be random. This is probably the most difficult of all the precautions to observe, for many persons will refuse to work with the investigator. Approximately twenty Washo refused with varying degrees of firmness to work with me. Of these, probably half would have eventually weakened because I could have brought pressure to bear through some of their relatives. This still would leave a siz- able number of adamant refusals. In small, homogene- ous groups like the Washo, the lack of a random sam- ple is probably less serious than in larger, more het- erogeneous societies. In the present study, the ,above-mentioned precau- tions were carried out less fully than they might have been because the importance of some of them became clear only as the work progressed. The first four may be observed with no particular difficulty. I regard numr bers one and four as particularly important. The prob- lem of obtaining a random sample presents the most difficulty, but the effort must be made so that statis- tically valid inferences may be drawn about the larger population. The role profile test deals only with the qualitative characteristics of roles. It indicates that a role ranks high in teaching or helping or fondness and low in sub- mission or hostility. But roles also differ in their con- tent. For example, both mother and father help a per- son, but the nature of the help differs. The mother cooks for an individual and mends his clothes; the fa- ther helps him to fix his car or to build a house. The role profile test tells us only that something is taught, but it does not tell us what is taught. The content of the teaching or helping or punishing distinguishes roles as much as the qualities of the roles. Among the Washq the differences in the content of roles generally follow sexual lines. For the most part, this study does not deal with these differences in content; but it will be seen that content must be taken into account in dis- tinguishing between the roles of the members of the nuclear family who are of opposite sex and in the same generation. THE SAMPLE TESTED The role profile test was administered to 47 of ap-. proximately 280 Washo living in the vicinity of Gard- nerville, Nevada, and Woodfords, California. An effort was made to select a sample with an equal number of men and women, and one in which the young, middle- aged, and old were represented fairly equally. How- ever, the persons within these categories were not selected randomly. The sample contains 20 men: five are thirty-five years of age or younger; 9 are from thirty-six to fifty-four years of age; and 6 are fifty- five years of age or older. The sample contains 27 women: 10 are thirty-five years of age or younger; 11 are thirty-six to fifty-four years of age; and 6 are fifty-five years of age or older. No one was tested who was under fourteen or who had less than seven different kinds of relatives. This reduced the number of young people who could be tested. The reluctance of the older Washo to mention dead relatives meant that many of the older people would not give all their relatives in the genealogical interviews, or would re- I I I iII I t 366 FREED: CHANGING WASHO KINSHIP fuse to be interviewed at all. This reduced somewhat the number of old people in the sample. Two people could not finish the test: one old woman, after com- pleting four questions, burst into tears at the mention of a dead relative; and a young woman could not finish :the last six questions, for she rejected the idea that any of her relatives could be hostile. The questions these women finished are perfectly usable and have been included in the analysis. The sample includes 4 blind people, 4 others with whom I had to use interpreters, and 8 people who were illiterate. None of these 16 persons could mani- late the slips of paper by themselves. They could ke the test, for they retained a mental list of the latives involved and verbally directed the investiga- r as to the arrangement of the slips. The order of latives was read back to them and they continued to ake adjustments until they were satisfied. They ndled the test fairly well, but not so well as people o could arrange the slips of paper themselves. This ct probably increases the variability of the protocols. STATISTICAL ANALYSIS The purpose of this analysis is to reduce the data a form in which the patterns of role behavior be- ome apparent, and their similarities and differences n easily be compared. Since the sample was not osen at random from the population, inferences awn from it about the larger population are, statis- cally speaking, dangerous. Two factors make the handling of the data trouble- me: (1) the number of relatives contained in the ticular protocols is different, ranging from seven fourteen; and (2) protocols with the same number relatives often contain different kinds of relatives. e ordinary, nonparametric methods of treating nked data assume that each individual ranks the e set of objects. Another possible method of anal- iS involves the construction of preference matrices r all relatives in all sixteen behavioral categories. s idea was discarded because the size of the ma- ces, together with the variability and the smallness the numbers in the cells, did not seem to promise ficient returns for the work involved. Consequently, the question of quantifying the data s studied. Because of the unequal number of rela- yes in the various protocols and because the rela- yes were often different in kind, some sort of metric emed unavoidable. Consider a specific category of havior and assume that the characteristic which de- rmines a person's rank can be measured numerical- and is distributed normally in the population. Let X ual the numerical value of the characteristic. Then is a normally distributed random variable which, convenience and with no loss of generality, we can sume has mean zero and variance one, that is, ap- zimately 68 per cent of the population have values X between -1 and +1. Thus, there are a few indi- duals who have the characteristic to a marked posi- e degree leading to an almost certain rank of one any comparison, and a few individuals who have characteristic to a marked negative degree leading an almost certain lowest rank. Now suppose that you have a judge and you take a dom sample of n individuals from the population ask him to rank them. Further, suppose that you eat this indefinitely with samples of n. Now consider the average value of X for all individuals who receive the rank r. For any given value of X, say x, the probability that you will get a sample of n in which exactly (r - 1) will have values of X > x and (n- r) will have values of X < x while one will have a value in the interval (x, x + dx) is n! n-r r- 1 (r - 1) (n - r)!q q2 q3 where qq, .., and q3 are the probabilities respectively for falling short of x, exceeding x, and falling in the interval (x, x + dx). More precisely, to within terms of order dx, x -tZ q = f _ e 2 dt, co -,- - -t2 co 1- q 2= f -_2 __r e 2 dt, /2 1 x 3 e 2 dx. The formula for the expected or mean value, lArf of the rth rank can then be written as follows 00 = , n!n- r r-l 1 -x X __ _n _ x__ q( 1)! e(2r dx. A table for the values of 4r is given in Fisher and Yates (1953, pp. 76-77). Admittedly in our data, the samples of n were not selected at random since they consist of all the rela- tives of the ranker in three selected generations. How- ever, the Washo are a small, homogeneous, interre- lated group; therefore, the relatives of one person are probably quite similar to the relatives of any other person. Taking this into consideration, it was thought that the relatives ranked by a given individual would have sufficient spread over the range of a characteris- tic to make the use of the metric Ulr meaningful. At the very least, the use of normal scores is a device which enables one to put rankings of, say, fourteen items and rankings of, say, seven items on numeri- cal scales which are comparable. If the kinship terms have no effect on the ranking within the categories, then the assignment of the kin- ship terms to the particular individuals being ranked would be at random. Thus, the rank of "father" would depend on the specific characteristics of the individual being ranked and not on the fact that he is' called fa- ther. Consequently, it would seem that since indivi- duals vary, the rankings of "father" would also vary from protocol to protocol. If, however, it were found that the rank of "father" is relatively constant, then it would seem that the kinship term "father" has a weight in determining rankings. After normal scores had been assigned to the test rankings, the mean, standard error of the mean, and 95 per cent confidence limits were calculated for each 367 ANTHROPOLOGICAL RECORDS relative in all sixteen categories. The mean was cal- culated as follows: N I xi X = i=l N The standard error of the formula mean was calculated by the N . (xi - )2 i=l X N-l X N - 1 The 95 per cent confidence limits were estimated by the formula X + 2S (When x is distributed normally, the confidence coeffi- cient corresponding to the interval X + 2SR is .954). An inspection of the lengths of the confidence inter- vals revealed no striking differences among them. Com- parisons of the end points of the confidence intervals showed the differences among the means of many rela- tives in each category of behavior to be significant be- cause of the lack of overlap between the confidence intervals. The male and female protocols were analyzed sepa- rately because it was assumed that roles are enacted somewhat differently toward men and women. That this assumption is correct is shown by the table on p. 395 (bottom). If the male and female protocols had been lumped, some of the differences in role behavior could have been obscured whenever the sex differences hap- penned to cancel each other. The fact that the male and female test protocols give slightly different results does not mean that we are dealing with two separate socie- ties or that Washo society is stratified or segmented in any way. Since the Washo are one society and have essentially one kinship system, a significant distinc- tion between two roles occurring among either men or women is regarded as a distinction obtaining for the whole society. Therefore, the following definition of role difference is used in this study: if the confidence intervals about the means of two roles fail to overlap in any category of behavior for either men or women, the roles are considered to differ significantly. The results of the statistical analysis are given in Appendices I and II. Appendix III contains the graphs of the means of all the roles investigated. These graphs of means are called role profiles. Appendix IV pre- sents the graphs of the sixteen categories with the kin- ship roles on the x axis. ROLE BEHAVIOR One general observation may be made before ex- amining Washo kinship role by role. This concerns the distinctiveness of almost all the roles. The Washo are among the bilateral tribes of the Great Basin, Plateau, and California which are generally thought to contain little significant kinship patterning apart from family relationships. Murdock has investigated this problem among the Tenino of central Oregon. He found a good deal of kinship patterning and concludes that there is considerable patterning of kinship behavior even in the simpler, sibless tribes (Murdock, 1949, pp. 111- 112). The present study presents additional evi-4 dence in support of Murdock. The table on p. 395 (top)} is a compilation of role comparisons indicating where the differences in the means are significant. This tabl shows Washo kinship behavior to be far from amorphouaf The role data are summarized below. The letters in parentheses after the kin terms are the abbrevia- tions used in the appendices. The order in which the roles are given here is the same order observed in all the appendices. Father (F). This relative ranks high in domi- nance (Categories 1-4), fairly high in affiliation (Categories 5-6), rather neutral in submission (Categories 7-10), and generally low in hostility. There is some ambivalence in the role of father regarding hostility because he is a disciplinarian for both men and women as shown by his high score in Category 14. In addition, women see him as a mildly suspicious and disapproving figure (Category 11). The only category where the role of father differs for men and women is Category 2 (to teach). Father's brother (FB). This role differs con- siderably for men and women. He is a much more important relative for men than for women as indi- cated by his higher rating in all categories except the last two, which show rejection. The role dif- fers significantly for men and women in Categories 2 (to teach) and 9 (to obey), and the difference comes very close to being significant in Category 1 (to order). The general role profile of father's brother for women is that of an unimportant rela- tive with whom there is little interaction. The gen eral role profile for men is roughly the same as that of father, the significant differences occurring in the first two categories. Father's sister (FS). The role profile for father sister is similar for both men and women. She is s rather cold and hostile figure; she ranks high only ink hostility (Categories 11- 13) and rejection (Categories 15 and 16). Although she is a disapproving relative, 8b1 possesses no disciplinary power over ego as shown by her negative score in Category 14. The role profI of father's sister is similar to that of mother's siste] but ranks lower in most qualities except hostility. and rejection. This is true for both men and women. Mother (M). The role profile for mother is similar to that for father. She ranks high in domi nance and affiliation, lower in submission, and lo in hostility. Like father, she is a disciplinarian, as indicated by her fairly high score in Category 14. Category 11 (to suspect wrongdoing) shows a significant distinction between the male and female, profiles, the women seeing their mothers as more suspicious. A similar distinction occurs for the father role, although the difference in role behavi is not significant. The mother is the most impor- tant and distinctive relative for a Washo. The table o p. 395 (top) gives 190 significant distinctions betweeni mother and all other roles. This number is fat more than the next closest relative, father, with 133 Mother's brother (MB). This relative is neutr in dominance and affiliation, and low in submissi for both men and women. Mother's brother is a I I I I 7 1. i? A I I I 368 FREED: CHANGIN( e suspicious and hostile figure for women than men (Categories 11, 12, 13, and 14). For the st part, mother's brother is a rather neutral e showing few large positive or negative scores. Mother's sister (MS). This relative is a much e dominating figure for women than for men. difference is significant in Category 2 (to teach). her's sister is neutral in affection for both es and females, ranks higher in submission for es, and fairly high in hostility towards both. rather high score in Category 13 for both men women shows her to be a disapproving and ical relative. Older brother (OB). The most distinctive feature this role is its neutrality. Its scores in all cate- es are close to zero. This probably is due to er brother's ambiguous age position. He is older ego but not a member of ego's parents' genera- Consequently, his role has attributes both of lity and of superiority. The result is a role ing distinctive features. Younger brother (YB). This is another role lack- distinctive features. The probable explanation is ilar to that used for older brother: younger bro- is ambivalent regarding age position, for he is ger than ego and yet a member of the same eration. The significant differences between older younger brother occur in the first two categor- Older brother is a much more dominating fig- than younger brother. Older sister (OS). This role is quite different men and women. For women, she is a mildly inant and highly co6perative relative. For men, is neutral in dominance, affiliation, and sub- sion, but ranks high as a disapproving, critical, suspicious relative. Significant differences in the es occur in Categories 2 (to teach) and 6 (to co- rate. Younger sister (YS). The role of younger sister luite similar to that of younger brother. It lacks ctive features, seeming to fall between the s of daughter and older sister. This is prob- y due to younger sister's position as a member ego's generation who is younger than ego. Male cousin (MaC) and Female cousin (FeC). se role profiles are based on a small number rotocols, since not many people use the cousin s. Consequently, the profiles should be viewed much less confidence than those of other rela- s. The profiles indicate that cousins are unim- ant relatives with whom there is little interac- An apparent exception is the behavior of fe- e cousins towards females in Category 13 (to pprove). Son (So). This relative ranks low in dominance hostility and high in affection and submission. profiles for men and women are similar. Dau hter (D). The role profiles for daughter sely resemble those of son; but there is more erence in the male and female profiles than e is for son. The difference is significant in egory 2 (to teach). Large differences also oc- in Categories 6 (to cooperate), 7 (to depend), 8 (to respect) with the profile for women scor- considerably higher. rother's child (BCh). This is a relative with there is little interaction. He ranks very in dominance, low in affiliation, low to neutral Eubmission, and low in hostility. The profiles G WASHO KINSHIP 369 for men and women are quite similar. Sister's child (SCh). The role profiles of this relative are almost identical with those of brother's child. Sister's child ranks very low in dominance, low in affiliation, and low to neutral in submission and hostility. The role profiles for men and women are very similar. A different perspective on Washo role behavior can be obtained from the graphs of the categories. They facilitate comparison of the sixteen roles within the behavioral categories. Category 1 (to order). The most important rela- tives in this category are those who are older than ego. Father and mother attain the highest score for both males and females. Father's brother and father's sister for females and mother's brother for males are exceptions to the general rule that older relatives rank high in dominance. Category 2 (to teach). As might be expected, relatives who are older than ego are ranked high. Older relatives who do not rank high are father's brother and father's sister for females and older sister for males. Category 3 (to help). Mother and father attain high scores for both men and women. Father's brother and older brother are fairly high for men; older brother, mother's sister, and older sister attain positive scores for women. Category 4 (to sympathize). Mother and father are the most sympathetic relatives. In addition, a man expects sympathy from his mother' s sister and older brother, and a woman from her older brother, older sister, and younger brother. Category 5 (to like). For women, the important relatives are mother and father. Older brother, older sister, son, and daughter also attain positive scores. All are members of the nuclear family. For males, affection is more widely diffused out- side the nuclear family. However, men do not feel themselves as intensely liked as women: note the higher scores of father and mother for females. Category 6 (to cooperate). There is considerable difference between men and women. The relatives who co8perate with men are men and those who co5perate with women are women. Note also the higher scores of the relatives who cooperate with women as opposed to those who cooperate with men. Category 7 (to depend). This category of behavior is surprisingly undifferentiated for men. Mother is the only really dependent person. Even son and daughter rank low in dependence. Women see their children as highly dependent upon them. Category 8 (to respect). One's children are the most respectful relatives. Mother also ranks high in this category. Women feel somewhat more res- pected than men, as indicated by the scores for daughter and mother. Category 9 (to obey). The most obedient rela- tives are son, daughter, and the younger siblings, all of whom are younger than ego. A person has little authority over younger people if they are not members of his nuclear family, as indicated by the scores for brother's child and sister's child. Category 10 (to want approval). For women, the only positive scores are achieved by members of the nuclear family. Men show a slight positive score for father's brother and mother's sister. As ANTHROPOLOGICAL RECORDS in Category 5 (to like), women confine their signifi- cant interactions to the family while men have more diffuse and less strongly structured relationships. This is made quite clear by the table of significant distinctions on p. 391 (right). Only two significant distinctions occur among the male role profiles; among the female role profiles, 31 significant dis- tinctions occur. Category 11 (to suspect wrongdoing). For men, the suspicious relatives are father's brother, fa- ther's sister, mother's sister, and older sister. Women have a greater number of suspicious rela- tives: father, father's sister, mother, mother's brother, and older siblings. Category 12 (to nag). This is a relatively undif- ferentiated category. For men, older sister scores higher than all other relatives. Women seem to have no outstanding relatives in this category. Category 13 (to disapprove). The nodal category for hostility shows a remarkable similarity between male and female role profiles. The only hostile relatives, and they are only mildly hostile, are father's sister, mother's sister, and older sister. Female cousin may be ignored because the cousin profiles are based on but a few protocols. Category 13 for men is similar to Category 11 for men. I can offer no explanation for the concentration of hostility in older female relatives. Category 14 (to punish). Older relatives are most prominent in this category. Father's sister is an exception for both men and women and father's brother for women. This category, together with Categories 1 and 2, shows that father's siblings lack dominance over women. Category 15 (to refuse help). This category em- phasizes the nuclear family relationships of father, mother, son, and daughter. They are the relatives with the lowest scores. Category 16 (to reject). This category illustrates even more clearly than Category 15 the closeness of a person to his father, mother, son, and daugh- ter. Some interesting inferences can be drawn from this review of categories. First, the importance of the nuclear family is clearly emphasized, especially the father, mother, son, and daughter relationships. Sec- ond, neither patrilineal relatives nor matrilineal rela- tives receive greater emphasis; the two groups of rela- tives have equal importance. Third, there is an inter- esting difference between men and women. If Appendix II is examined, it will be seen that men have many more significant distinctions among roles in the cate- gories probing dominance (1-4 and 13-16) than in the categories testing submission. Women have a closer to equal number of significant distinctions among roles in the categories probing dominance as in the cate- gories testing for submission. In other words, men tend to see their relationships regarding who domi- nates them as clearly structured, but are much less clear as to whom they dominate; women see their relationship with subordinate relatives to be structured almost as clearly as their relationships with dominant ones. This may be an indication that Washo males tend to lack self-confidence and that Washo women may have made a more satisfactory adjustment to modern conditions than have the men. This inference receives support from my observa- tions. Men seemed less inclined to put themselves in a situation where their egos could be threatened. For example, they were more reluctant to be interviewed and to take the role profile test. The apparent differences in the adjustment of Wasbh men and women resemble the different adjustments to modern conditions made by men and women among t Saulteaux and Ojibwa. Hallowell made a study of acc turation and personality changes among the Saulteaux and concluded that women are better adjusted than me because the male aspects of culture have changed mort through acculturation (1942, p. 48). Caudill studied the- psychological characteristics of acculturated Ojibwa and also concluded that women seem to make a more satisfactory adjustment to the conditions of modern life than do men (1949, p. 425). The Washo role data. can be interpreted as supporting the psychological studies of Hallowell and Caudill. ROLE BEHAVIOR AND THE NEW TERMINOLOGICAL SYSTEM The data from the role profile test support the in-. ferences presented at the beginning of this chapter. The; table of significant distinctions in Appendix II (p. 395,t top) presents the relevant data. As predicted: (1) there are no significant distinctions between either the role of mother's brother and father's brother or the roles of brother's child and sister's child; and (2) the roles of cousins are well distinguished from the roles of lings. Older brother and younger brother are both di tinguished from male cousin seven times. Older sist is distinguished from female cousin nine times; yo sister is distinguished from female cousin three time That cousins are well distinguished from siblings w mother's brother resembles father's brother and bro-g ther's child is similar to sister's child can be clear seen from figures 2 to 9 on pp. 372-375. The inference that the roles associated with the stable parts of the kinship terminology all differ sig- nificantly from each other is supported reasonably w by the test data. However, there are five apparent ceptions: no significant distinctions exist between the, roles of father and mother, son and daughter, youn brother and younger sister, mother's brother and ol brother, and mother's brother and father's sister. first three exceptions can be easily explained. These relatives are nuclear family members of opposite sea and the same generation. They do not differ in the qualities of their roles, but the sex distinction make" for significant differences in the content of the roles, However, the similarity in the qualities of the roles of father and mother and son and daughter is not ig- nored in the kinship terminology, for the Washo ha two terms meaning "parent" and one meaning "'child.!' In only two instances does role behavior fail to agr with terminological usage: mother's brother is not distinguished from either older brother or father's sister. Consequently, of the 120 possible comparis among the roles of the three generations studied, 11 support the assumption of a close fit of role and ter minological system. Since the terminological system is apparently ch ing in the face of a relatively stable social structure at least some of the causes of this change lie outsi social organization. What are the cultural causes appear capable of modifying Washo role behavior so. as to produce the emerging system of kinship termFi nology? In the case of the cousin terms, we musts A I., .1 I i I I 370 FREED: CHANGING WASHO KINSBIP cultural causes which would reduce the importance of cousins as compared to siblings, thus setting the stage (for the terminological distinction. This result would [tend to follow the introduction of a money economy and the subsequent individualization of the society. As e have seen, cooperative activity has lessened among te Washo; and this presumably has meant that distant jlatives are not as important as they once were. Con- equently, the roles played by cousins have become rogressively different from the roles of siblings, and s has been reflected in the kinship terminology. The merging of mother's brother and father's brother and of brother's child and sister's child probably is due to three major causes. The first is the individualization of the society, which reduces the importance of rela- tives not in the nuclear family; the second is the loss of nonsororal polygyny; and the third is the knowledge of the English kinship terminology, which may function as a kind of model for the new Washo kinship terminology. The cultural causes of the changes in Washo kinship ter- minology suggested here must be regarded only as hypo- theses. Their verification requires comparative data. CONCLUSION This study has presented an analysis of changes in rasho culture and social organization. It has suggested hat the changes in the Washo system of kinship ter- inology can be explained best by the hypothesis that ltural factors may affect kinship terminology direct- instead of indirectly by first modifying elements of irmal social structure, such as residence rules and nds of kin groups. This hypothesis hinged on show- g that role behavior is closely correlated with kin- hip terminology. This assumption was substantially rified by data derived from the role profile test; the 'asho role behavior was shown to correlate closely ih the new, emerging kinship system. Since changes formal social structure could not adequately account r changes in the terminological system, it was con- uded that cultural factors have directly affected role havior, thereby causing terminological modification. Inally, some possible cultural factors were suggested account for changes in role behavior. The role profile test provided much of the data up- on which the foregoing demonstration has been based. It has shown itself to be a useful and sensitive instru- ment for the collection of role data. Its principal value is that it can be treated statistically, and this permits objective role comparisons within a society. Such com- parisons can be made just as easily between societies, provided the same statistical analysis is used. The test has some limitations. First, it deals only with the qualities of roles and does not test for their con- tent. Second, the categories may have to be modified from society to society, for there is no certainty that the categories used for the Washo would be satisfactory for other tribes. The test is not meant to replace ob- servation and interviewing; but at the same time it re- veals role patterning that would escape all but the most careful and prolonged field work. The role pro- file test seems to me a most promising technique for the study of role behavior. 371 Category 2 3 4 5 6 7 6 9 10 I1 12 13 14 IS 16 o.2 - _ _-Y a 1.0 .6 .4- .2 o - , t c~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ -:: 1 0 !\ /.\ , \. _._ // * 2- -12 / -|.o ~ I ' _.. Fig. 2. Comparison of role profiles: older brother, younger brother, and male cousin (male informants). 1 2 3 4 S 6 7 c 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 . * . . . ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~I \. I, !| . 0-9 1.2 - yI NK I 1.0 \ i -1.2 Fig. 3. Comparison of role profiles: older brother, younger brother, and male cousin (female informants). [ 372 ] Cate g or y 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 6 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 1.2 1.0 .6 .6 .4 C O .24 _ - -.6. -.8 -1.0 -1.2 Fig. 4. Comparison of role profiles: older sister, younger sister, and female cousin (male informants). Cat e g or y 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 6 9 10 II 12 13 14 IS 16 * . i I * , * I Os 1.2 - __ Fe .C YS 1.0 - .6 .6 .4 -.2 - -.4 Fig. 5. Comparison of role profiles: older sister, younger sister, and female cousin (female informants). [ 373 1 Category 6 7 a 9 Fig. 6. Comparison of role profiles: brother's child and sister's child (male informants). Category Fig. 7. Comparison of role profiles: brother's child and sister's child (female informants). [ 374 1 1.2 1.0 .0 .6 .4 . 2 0 -.2 - .4 -.6 -i.0 -1.2 c 0 0 C 0 S - 1 2 3 4 5 - A . . -t - - - - t - - - Cats g or y 6 7 8 9 1 0 1 1 12 13 14 15 16 Fig. 8. Comparison of role profiles: father's brother and mother's brother (male informants). Category 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 a 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 I * I . . I I* - I I I I I I , I Fig. 9. Comparison of role profiles: father's brother and mother's brother (female informants). [ 375 1 I.2 1.0 .8 .6 .4 .2 c a 0 0 - .4 -.6 -.80 -1.0 -1.2 1.2 1.0 .8 .6 .4. .2 *0 -.2 -.4 -.6. -.8- -1.0. -1.2 - MBS // APPENDIXES APPENDIX I STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: TABLES OF MEANS, STANDARD ERRORS OF THE MEANS, AND 95 PER CENT CONFIDENCE LIMITS This appendix contains the statistical analysis of the protocols of the role profile test. The abbreviations are as follows: father (F), father's brother (FB), father's sister (FS), mother (M), mother's brother (MB), mother's sister (MS), older brother (OB), younger brother (YB), older sister (OS), younger sister (YS), male cousin (MaC), female cousin (FeC), son (So), daughter (D), brother's child (BCh), and sister's child (SCh). Each table gives the number (No.), mean (X), standard error of the mean (S), and the 95 per cent confidence limits. CATEGORY 1 CATEGORY 2 95% Confidence limits No. X SR Lower Upper Male F 19 1.10 .18 .74 1.46 FB 14 .40 .16 .08 .72 FS 13 .35 .22 - .09 .79 M 20 .76 .14 .48 1.04 MB 12 - .02 .21 - .44 .40 MS 11 .28 .13 .02 .54 OB 14 .35 .19 - .03 .73 YB 17 - .35 .12 - .59 - .11 0s 12 .17 .12 - .07 .41 YS 12 - . 63 .20 -1. 03 - .23 MaC 5 - .80 .29 -1. 38 - .22 FeC 4 -1. 20 .20 -1. 60 - .80 so 9 - .60 .13 - .86 - .34 D 10 - .93 .14 -1. 21 - .65 BCh 10 - .96 .14 -1. 24 - .68 SCh 11 - .84 .19 -1.22 - .46 Female F 21 .86 .15 .56 1. 16 FB 16 - .30 .20 - .70 .10 FS 10 - .09 .31 - .71 .53 m 26 1.02 .10 .82 1. 22 MB 15 .25 .26 - .27 .77 MS 18 .60 .15 .30 .90 .B 22 .36 . 16 .04 .68 YB 22 - .25 .12 - .49 - .01 24 .47 .12 .23 .71 YS 21 - .44 .17 - .78 - .10 aC 3 - 16 .14 - .44 .12 eC 4 - .35 .24 - .83 .13 19 - .44 .20 - .84 - .04 18 - .49 .14 - .77 - .21 Ch 24 - .89 .13 -1. 15 - .63 h 25 - .70 .08 - .86 - .54 [ 379 1 95% Confidence limits No. X s- Lower Upper Male F 19 1.23 .08 1.07 1. 39 FB 14 .72 .14 .44 1.00 FS 13 .07 .23 - .39 .53 M 20 .99 .10 .79 1. 19 MB 12 .18 .19 - .20 .56 MS 11 .15 .16 - .17 47 OB 14 .27 .08 .11 .43 YB 17 - .49 .08 - .65 - .33 OS 12 - .07 .14 - .35 .21 YS 12 - .64 .13 - .90 - . 38 MaC 5 - .87 .23 -1.33 - .41 FeC 4 -1. 24 .30 -1.84 - .64 So 9 - .63 .14 - .91 - .35 D 10 -1. 11 .13 -1. 37 - .85 BCh 10 -1. 09 .14 -1. 37 - .81 SCh 11 - .71 .12 - .95 - .47 Female F 21 .46 .17 .12 .80 FB 16 - .39 .20 - .79 .01 FS 10 - .26 25 - .76 .24 M 26 1.01 .15 .71 1. 31 MB 15 .18 .15 - .12 .48 MS 18 .87 .14 .59 1. 15 OB 22 .36 .14 .08 .64 YB 22 - .11 .13 - .37 .15 OS 24 .55 .15 .25 .85 YS 21 - .23 .17 - .57 .11 MaC 3 - .27 .58 -1.43 .89 FeC 4 - .52 .47 -1. 46 . 42 So 19 - .44 .15 - .74 - .14 D 18 - .45 .17 - .79 - .11 BCh 24 - .82 .11 -1. 04 - . 60 SCh 26 - . 78 .12 -1. 02 - .54 I ANTHROPOLOGICAL RECORDS CATEGORY 3 CATEGORY 4 95% Confidence limits No. X s- Lower Upper Male 19 14 13 20 12 11 14 17 12 12 5 4 9 10 10 11 .80 .55 .31 .80 .12 .04 .38 .14 .06 .60 .87 -1.02 .20 .83 .95 .49 .18 .18 .24 .18 .11 .17 .17 .16 .19 ,24 .13 .30 .28 .22 .29 .13 .44 .19 - . 79 .44 - .10 - . 30 .04 - . 46 - . 32 -1.08 -1. 13 -1.62 - . 76 -1.27 -1.53 - . 75 1. 16 . 91 .17 1. 16 .34 .38 .72 .18 .44 - . 12 - . 61 - . 42 .36 - . 39 - . 37 - . 23 Female 21 16 10 26 15 18 22 22 24 21 3 4 19 18 24 26 .76 - .09 -,29 1.03 .11 .23 .39 - .13 .34 - .21 - .57 - .46 - .29 - .55 - .77 - .64 ,19 .17 .25 .14 .18 . 19 .19 ,17 14 .18 .37 .31 .17 18 . 11 . 10 .38 - . 43 - . 79 .75 - . 25 - . 15 , 01 - . 47 .06 - . 57 -1.31 -1.08 - . 63 - . 91 - . 99 - . 84 1. 14 .25 .21 1. 31 .47 .61 .77 .21 .62 .15 ,17 ,16 . 05 - .19 - . 55 - . 44 95% Confidence limits No. X S- Lower Upper x Male F 19 .77 .17 .43 1.11 FB 14 .04 .21 - .38 .46 FS 13 - .32 .32 - .96 .32 M 20 .89 .14 .61 1.17 MB 12 - .15 .16 - .47 .17 MS 11 .26 .26 - .26 .78 OB 14 .35 .11 .13 . 57 YB 17 - .08 .13 - .34 .18 OS 12 .01 .18 - .35 .37 YS 12 - .40 .22 - .84 .04 MaC 5 -1. 05 .24 -1.53 - .57 FeC 4 - .96 .26 -1.48 - .44 So 9 - .02 .19 - .40 .36 D 10 - .15 .34 - .83 .53 BCh 10 - .89 .31 -1.51 - .27 SCh 11 - .82 .11 -1.04 - .60 Female F 21 .56 .20 .16 .96 FB 16 - .10 .19 - .48 .28 FS 10 - .50 .29 -1.08 .08 M 26 1.01 .15 .71 1. 31 MB 15 - .16 .22 - 60 .28 MS 18 .03 .18 - .33 .39 OB 22 .26 .17 - .08 .60 YB 22 .09 .14 - .19 ,37 OS 24 .32 .14 .04 .60 YS 21 - .11 .21 - .53 .31 MaC 3 - 32 .11 - .54 - .10 FeC 4 - .37 .20 - .77 .03 So 19 - .07 .17 - .41 .27 D 18 - .10 .21 - .52 .32 BCh 24 - .81 .15 -1.11 - .51 SCh 26 - .68 .09 - .86 - .50 F FB FS M MB MS OB YB OS YS MaC FeC So D BCh SCh F FB FS M MB MS OB YB OS YS MaC FeC So D BCh SCh I I I I I~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ I I - I - -- I I I I I I I . . - - 380 FREED: CHANGING WASHO KINSHIP CATEGORY 5 CATEGORY 6 95% Confidence limits No. SR Lower Upper Male F 19 .30 .22 - .14 .74 FB 14 .19 .25 - .31 .69 FS 13 - .20 .24 - .68 .28 M 20 .60 .20 .20 1.00 MB 12 - .17 .15 - .47 .13 MS 11 .23 .20 - .17 .63 OB 14 .30 .14 .02 .58 YB 17 - .05 .14 - .33 .23 OS 12 - .21 .25 - .71 .29 YS 12 - . 35 .19 - . 73 .03 MaC 5 -1. 09 .22 -1.53 - .65 FeC 4 -1. 35 .13 -1. 61 -1. 09 So 9 .36 .26 - .16 .88 D 10 .08 .42 - .76 . 92 BCh 10 - .45 .33 -1. 11 .21 SCh 11 - .31 24 - .79 .17 Female F 20 .69 .16 .37 1. 01 FB 15 - .46 .19 - .84 - .08 FS 9 - .45 .34 -1. 13 .23 M 25 .93 .11 .71 1. 15 MB 15 - .07 .26 - .59 . 45 MS 17 .00 .17 - .34 . 34 OB 21 .19 .20 - .21 . 59 l YB 21 - .04 .19 - .42 . 34 [0S 23 .29 .15 - .01 . 59 YS 20 - .09 .22 - .53 .35 MaC 2 - .27 .58 -1.43 .89 FeC 3 - .10 .55 -1. 20 1.00 So 18 .25 .18 - .11 .61 D 17 .13 .18 - .23 .49 BCh 23 - .94 .12 -1. 18 - .70 SCh 25 - .68 .09 - .86 - .50 95% Confidence limits No. X SR Lower Upper Male F 19 .42 .18 .06 .78 FB 14 .40 . 26 - .12 .92 FS 13 - .57 .19 - .95 - .19 M 20 .05 .24 - .43 .53 MB 12 - .14 .21 - .56 .28 MS 11 - .24 .20 - .64 .16 OB 14 .40 .20 .00 .80 YB 17 .24 .18 - .12 . 60 OS 12 - .26 .17 - .60 .08 YS 12 - .30 .21 - .72 .12 MaC 5 - .16 .48 -1. 12 .80 FeC 4 -1. 12 .24 -1. 60 - .64 So 9 .70 .30 .10 1. 30 D 10 - .09 .29 - .67 .49 BCh 10 - .35 .30 - .95 .25 SCh 11 - .22 .30 - .82 .38 Female F 20 .10 .19 - .28 .48 FB 15 - .45 .21 - .87 - .03 FS 10 - .63 .27 -1. 17 - .09 M 25 .74 .18 .38 1. 10 MB 15 - .21 .17 - .55 .13 MS 17 - .08 .17 - .42 .26 OB 21 .01 .14 - .27 .29 YB 21 - .05 .11 - .27 .17 OS 23 .79 .12 .55 1.03 YS 20 .23 .23 - .23 .69 MaC 2 - .58 .27 -1. 12 - .04 FeC 3 .03 .57 -1.11 1.17 So 18 - .03 .24 - .51 .45 D 17 .56 .16 .24 .88 BCh 23 - .77 .17 -1.11 - .43 SCh 25 - .58 .14 - .86 - .30 381 ANTHROPOLOGICAL RECORDS CATEGORY 7 CATEGORY 8 95% Confidence limits No. S- Lower Upper Male F 19 .23 .21 - .19 .65 FB 14 - .08 .20 - .48 .32 FS 13 - .47 .28 -1. 03 .09 M 20 .61 .19 .23 .99 MB 12 - .58 .18 - .94 - .22 MS 11 - .14 .21 - .56 .28 OB 14 .08 .22 - .36 .52 YB 17 .12 .21 - .30 .54 OS 12 .03 .20 - .37 .43 YS 12 - .12 .20 - .52 .28 MaC 5 - .56 .57 -1. 70 .58 FeC 4 - .45 .51 -1. 47 . 57 So 9 .27 .27 - .27 .81 D 10 .06 .35 - .64 .76 BCh 10 .03 .26 - .49 .55 SCh 11 - .17 .31 - .79 45 Female F 20 .03 .20 - .37 .43 FB 15 - .57 .21 - .99 - .15 FS 10 - .34 .34 -1. 02 .34 M 25 .19 .18 - .17 .55 MB 15 - .25 .21 - .67 .17 MS 17 - .39 .21 - .81 .03 OB 21 - .14 .17 - .48 .20 YB 21 .36 .15 .06 .66 OS 23 .22 .18 - .14 .58 YS 20 - .07 .19 - .45 .31 MaC 2 - .59 ,20 - .99 - .19 FeC 3 - .36 .28 - .92 .20 So 18 .70 .18 .34 1.06 D 17 .90 .22 .46 1.34 BCh 23 - .39 .16 - .71 - .07 SCh 25 - .32 .14 - .60 - .04 95% Confidence limits No. X S5 Lower Upper x Male F 19 .16 .19 - .22 .54 FB 14 .23 .28 - .33 .79 FS 13 - .53 .30 -1.13 .07 M 20 .34 .21 - .08 .76 MB 12 - .37 .21 - .79 .05 MS 11 .07 .20 - .33 .47 OB 14 .26 .15 - .04 .56 YB 17 .14 .17 - .20 .48 OS 12 - .21 .22 - .65 .23 YS 12 - .22 .23 - .68 .24 MaC 5 - 26 .55 -1.36 .84 FeC 4 - .91 .26 -1. 43 - .39 So 9 .62 .27 .08 1.16 D 10 - .03 .36 - .75 .69 BCh 10 - .34 .27 - .88 .20 SCh 11 - .03 .26 - .55 .49 Female F 20 .28 .21 - .14 .70 FB 15 - .35 .24 - .83 .13 FS 10 - .60 .29 -1. 18 - .02 M 25 .54 .16 .22 .86 MB 15 - .36 .16 - 68 - .04 MS 17 - .24 .20 - .64 .16 OB 21 - .14 .17 - .48 .20 YB 21 - .20 .21 - .62 .22 OS 20 26 .16 - .29 .58 YS 20 .15 .22 - 290 .59 MaC 2 - .58 .27 -1.12 - .04 FeC 3 - .39 .34 -1. 07 .29 So 18 .45 .20 .05 .85 D 17 .82 .19 .44 1.20 BCh 23 - .44 .15 - .74 - .14 SCh 25 - .39 15 - .69 - .09 382 FREED: CHANGING WASHO KINSHIP CATEGORY 9 CATEGORY 10 95% Confidence limits No. X S Lower Upper x Male F 19 - .09 .21 - .51 .33 FB 14 - .03 .18 - .39 .33 FS 13 - .70 .25 -1.20 - .20 M 20 .19 .19 - .19 .57 MB 12 - .46 .19 - .84 - .08 MS 11 - .10 .23 - .56 .36 OB 14 .01 .23 - .45 .47 YB 17 .29 .19 - .09 .67 OS 12 - .22 .19 - .60 .16 YS 12 .50 .23 .04 .96 MaC 5 - .57 .36 -1. 29 .15 FeC 4 - .73 .36 -1. 45 - .01 So 9 .83 .27 .29 1.37 D 10 .45 .28 - .11 1.01 BCh 10 .18 .34 - .50 .86 SCh 11 - .22 .32 - .86 .42 Female F 20 - .16 .21 - .58 .26 FB 15 - .79 .14 -1. 07 - .51 FS 10 - .95 .21 -1.37 - .53 25 .14 .18 - .22 .50 MB 15 - .48 .21 - .90 - .06 MS 17 - .47 .17 - .81 - .13 OB 21 .04 .21 - .38 .46 YB 21 .40 .17 .06 .74 OS 23 .37 .14 .09 .65 YS 20 .28 .19 - .10 .66 MaC 2 - 40 .40 -1. 20 .40 FeC 3 - .47 .36 -1. 19 .25 .So 18 .63 .18 .27 .99 D 17 .61 .18 .25 .97 BCh 23 - .26 .19 - .64 .12 SCh 25 - .02 .15 - .32 .28 95% Confidence limits No. X S Lower Upper x Male F 19 .23 .21 - .19 .65 FB 14 .17 .19 - .21 .55 FS 13 - . 59 .26 -1.11 - .07 M 20 .54 .20 .14 .94 MB 12 - . 39 .19 - .77 - .01 MS 11 .09 .22 - .35 .53 OB 14 .28 .20 - .12 .68 YB 17 .06 .13 - .20 .32 OS 12 .18 .28 - .38 .74 YS 12 - .21 .25 - .71 .29 MaC 5 - .49 .52 -1. 53 .55 FeC 4 - .73 .44 -1. 61 .15 So 9 .25 .36 - .47 .97 D 10 .02 .29 - .56 .60 BCh 10 - .43 .30 -1. 03 .17 SCh 11 - .32 .27 - .86 .22 Female F 20 .46 .15 .16 .76 FB 15 - .48 .25 - .98 .02 FS 10 - . 33 .36 -1.05 .39 M 25 .72 .14 .44 1.00 MB 15 - .24 .19 - .62 .14 MS 17 - .54 .19 - .92 - .16 OB 21 .01 . 17 - .33 .35 YB 21 .22 .17 - .12 .56 OS 23 .25 .16 - 07 .57 YS 20 - .01 .23 - .47 .45 MaC 2 - .46 .15 - .76 - .16 FeC 3 - .06 .20 - 46 .34 So 18 .33 .21 - .09 .75 D 17 .30 .21 - .12 .72 BCh 23 - .60 .17 - .94 - .26 SCh 25 - .43 .15 - .73 - .13 383 ANTHROPOLOGICAL RECORDS CATEGORY 11 CATEGORY 12 95% Confidence limits No. X S- Lower Upper Male F 19 .07 .21 - .35 .49 FB 14 .21 .25 - .29 .71 FS 13 .54 .19 .16 .92 M 20 - .30 .17 - .64 .04 MB 12 .00 .18 - .36 .36 MS 11 .34 .15 .04 .64 OB 14 .01 .20 - .39 .41 YB 17 .01 .20 - .39 .41 OS 12 . 75 .19 .37 1. 13 YS 12 - .18 .24 - .66 .30 MaC 5 - .02 .64 -1. 30 1. 26 FeC 4 - .12 .57 -1. 26 1. 02 So 9 _ .16 .32 - .80 .48 D 10 - .55 .35 -1. 25 .15 BCh 10 - .69 .26 -1. 21 - .17 SCh 11 - .17 .30 - .77 ,43 Female F 19 .58 .23 .12 1. 04 FB 14 - .14 .21 - .56 .28 FS 9 .26 .38 - .50 1.02 M 24 .53 .21 .11 .95 MB 14 .56 .16 .24 .88 MS 16 - .10 .21 - .52 .32 OB 20 .22 .16 - .10 .54 YB 20 .02 .17 - .32 .36 OS 22 .20 .17 - .14 .54 YS 20 - .18 .18 - .54 .18 MaC 2 - .99 .68 -2. 35 .37 FeC 3 .15 . 29 - .43 ,73 So 18 - .06 .21 - .48 .36 D 17 - .36 .20 - .76 .04 BCh 22 - .70 .15 -1. 00 - .40 SCh 24 - .49 .14 - .77 - .21 95% Confidence limits No. X S Lower Upper x Male F 19 .09 .27 - .45 .63 FB 14 - .14 .24 - .62 .34 FS 13 . 33 . 26 - .19 .85 M 20 - .12 .16 - .44 .20 MB 12 - .48 . 28 -1. 04 .08 MS 11 .20 .17 - .14 .54 OB 14 .19 . 20 - .21 .59 YB 17 .27 .19 - 11 .65 OS 12 .76 . 20 .36 1. 16 YS 12 - .11 .21 - .53 .31 MaC 5 - .33 .53 -1. 39 .73 FeC 4 - .12 .57 -1. 26 1.02 So 9 - . 38 .24 - .86 .10 D 10 - .41 .32 -1. 05 .23 BCh 10 - .47 .22 - .91 - .03 SCh 11 .11 .28 - .45 .67 Female F 19 - .35 .17 - .69 - .01 FB 14 - .27 .23 - .73 .19 FS 9 - .46 .42 -1. 30 .38 M 24 .11 .19 - .27 ,49 MB 14 .26 .26 - .26 .78 MS 16 .35 .22 - .09 .79 OB 20 - .17 .22 - .61 .27 YB 20 .12 .14 - .16 ,40 OS 22 .33 .21 - .09 .75 YS 20 - .05 .17 - .39 .29 MaC 2 -1. 23 . 44 -2. 11 - .35 FeC 3 - .16 .31 - .78 .46 So 18 .31 .24 - .17 .79 D 17 . 29 .20 - .11 .69 BCh 22 - .21 .18 - .57 .15 SCh 24 - .22 , 17 - .56 .12 384 FREED: CHANGING WASHO KINSHIP CATEGORY 13 CATEGORY 14 95% Confidence limits No. X S_ Lower Upper x Male F 19 - .08 .19 - .46 .30 FB 14 - .05 .21 - .47 37 FS 13 43 .28 - .13 .99 M 20 - .09 .21 - .51 .33 MB 12 - .27 .31 - .89 .35 MS 11 69 .15 .39 .99 OB 14 - .10 .25 - .60 .40 YB 17 .02 .19 - .36 .40 OS 12 .56 .28 .00 1.12 YS 12 .04 .16 - .28 .36 MaC 5 - .29 .48 -1. 25 .67 FeC 4 - .08 .69 -1.46 1. 30 So 9 - .28 .22 - .72 .16 D 10 - .64 .24 -1. 12 - .16 BCh 10 - .27 .29 - .85 .31 SCh 11 .14 .26 - .38 .66 Female F 19 .13 .17 - .21 .47 FB 14 - .21 .26 - .73 .31 FS 9 .46 .44 - .42 1. 34 M 24 .15 .19 - .23 .53 MB 14 - .01 .22 - .45 .43 MS 16 .53 .24 .05 1. 01 OB 20 - .01 .17 - .35 .33 YB 20 - 16 .18 - .52 .20 OS 22 .49 .18 .13 .85 YS 20 - .41 .20 - .81 01 MaC 2 -1. 40 .28 -1. 96 - .84 FeC 3 .98 .34 .30 1. 66 So 18 .08 .23 - .38 .54 D 17 - .03 .17 - .37 .31 BCh 22 - .26 .13 - .52 .00 Oh 24 - .41 18 - .77 - .05 95% Confidence limits No. X S. | Lower Upper x __ Male F 19 .70 .24 .22 1. 18 FB 14 .30 .19 - .08 . 68 FS 13 - .23 .19 - .61 .15 M 20 .51 .20 .11 .91 MB 12 .20 .24 - .28 68 MS 11 .38 .17 .04 .72 OB 14 .33 .24 - .15 .81 YB 17 - .04 .21 - .46 .38 OS 12 .30 . 19 - .08 .68 YS 12 - 41 .17 - .75 - .07 MaC 5 - .42 .30 -1. 02 .18 FeC 4 -1. 13 .34 -1. 81 - .45 So 9 - .53 .23 - .99 - .07 D 10 - .83 .19 -1. 21 - .45 BCh 10 - .84 .21 -1. 26 - .42 SCh 11 - .52 .11 - .74 - .30 Female F 19 .73 .27 .19 1. 27 FB 14 - .13 .24 - .61 .35 FS 9 - .15 .40 - .95 .65 M 24 .57 .17 .23 .91 MB 14 .45 .23 - .01 .91 MS 16 .21 .19 - .17 .59 OB 20 .08 .16 - .24 .40 YB 20 - .24 .14 - .52 .04 OS 22 .32 .14 .04 .60 YS 20 - .40 .19 - .78 - .02 MaC 2 - .99 .68 -2. 35 .37 FeC 3 .04 .09 - .14 .22 So 18 .15 .22 - 29 .59 D 17 - .34 .22 - .78 .10 BCh 22 - .71 15 -1. 01 - .41 SCh 24 - .38 .09 - .56 - .20 I 385 ANTHROPOLOGICAL RECORDS CATEGORY 15 CATEGORY 16 95% Confidence limits No. X 5- Lower Upper x Male F 19 - .40 .22 - .84 .04 FB 14 .10 .21 - .32 .52 FS 13 .62 .20 .22 1.02 M 20 - .65 .17 - .99 - .31 MB 12 .06 .21 - .35 .48 MS 11 .35 .19 - .03 73 OB 14 .33 .19 - .05 .71 YB 17 - .06 .19 - .44 .32 OS 12 .60 .24 .12 1.08 YS 12 .02 .29 - .56 . 60 MaC 5 .10 .63 -1. 16 1.36 FeC 4 . 24 .65 -1. 06 1. 54 So 9 - .12 .22 - .56 .32 D 10 - .37 .29 - .95 .21 BCh 10 - .07 .29 - .65 .51 SCh 11 - .05 .28 - .61 .51 Female F 19 - .26 .22 - .70 .18 FB 14 .51 .16 .19 .83 FS 9 .65 .35 - .05 1.35 M 24 - .38 .18 - .74 - .02 MB 14 .63 .22 .19 1.07 MS 16 .59 .13 .33 .85 OB 20 .09 .21 - .33 .51 YB 20 .02 .18 - .34 .38 OS 22 .37 .20 - .03 .77 YS 20 .12 .15 - .18 .42 MaC 2 - .28 1.40 -3. 08 2.52 FeC 3 .47 .36 - .25 1. 19 So 18 - .68 .13 - .94 - .42 D 17 - .72 .15 -1. 02 - .42 BCh 22 - .06 .17 - .40 .28 SCh 24 - .20 .19 - .58 .18 95% Confidence limits No. X s- Lower Upper Male F FB FS M MB MS OB YB OS YS MaC FeC So D BCh SCh 19 14 13 20 12 11 14 17 12 12 5 4 9 10 10 11 - . 36 .39 . 69 - . 65 . 49 43 .39 - . 06 .61 - . 10 .21 .31 -1. 00 -1. 14 .03 .19 . 19 .21 . 14 . 17 .18 . 19 . 19 .20 .22 . 17 .57 . 66 . 15 . 16 . 19 .30 - .74 - .03 . 41 - .99 .13 . 05 . 01 - .46 .17 - .44 - .93 -1. 01 -1.30 -1.46 - .35 - .41 .02 .81 .97 - .31 .85 .81 .77 .34 1.05 .24 1. 35 1. 63 - .70 - .82 .41 .79 Female F FB FS M MB MS OB YB OS YS MaC FeC So D BCh SCh 19 14 9 24 14 16 20 20 22 20 2 3 18 17 22 24 - . 25 . 84 .76 - .51 .52 .61 .02 - . 01 .30 - . 07 - . 44 .65 - . 67 - . 67 .03 - . 09 .20 .20 .32 . 18 .20 . 14 . 15 . 18 . 17 . 19 1. 23 .52 . 17 . 17 .20 . 16 - .65 .44 .12 - .87 .12 . 33 - . 28 - . 37 - . 04 - . 45 -2. 90 - . 39 -1. 01 -1. 01 - . 37 - .41 .15 1.24 1.40 - .15 .92 .89 .32 .35 .64 .31 2.02 1. 69 - .33 - .33 43 .23 _ _ _ _ I , . . . . . I - I I I I i I I I I I I I I I 386 APPENDIX II STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: COMPARISON OF ROLES This appendix is a comparison of the differences in the means of the roles of all relatives in all categories. When the 95 per cent confidence intervals about the means fail to overlap, the roles are considered to differ sig- ificantly. The x's in the tables indicate that the 95 per cent confidence intervals of two given roles fail to over- ap and that the difference in behavior of these two roles is therefore significant. First, the comparison is given y category. Then, on page 395 (top), there is a table which is a summation of the preceding sixteen categories. The table at the bottom of page 395 compares the mean of a particular relative as rated by males with the ean of the same relative as rated by females. The comparison is made for all relatives in all categories. When e confidence intervals fail to overlap, they are marked with an x. The abbreviations are the same as those used in Appendix I. CATEGORY 1 CATEGORY 2 Male FF M M O Y O Y F B S M B S B B S S M a C F e S C o B C D h S C h x x x x xxx x x x x x x x x xxx x x x x x xxx x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x \ x x x x x xx x x x x x x xx x x x x x x x x x x x Female FF M M O Y O Y F B S M B S B B S S M a C F e S C o B C D h S C h x x x x x x x xx x x x x x \x xx x x x xx x xx x x x \ x x x xx x xx x \x x x x x x x x x x xx x xx x x x Male F FB FS M MB MS OB YB OS YS MaC FeC So D BCh SCh E F M M O Y O Y F B S M B S B B S S M F a e S C C o B C D h S C h x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x xx x x x x x x xx x x x x x x xx x x x x x xx xxx xx x Female F FB FS M MB MS OB YB OS YS MaC FeC So D BCh SCh FF M M O Y O Y F B S M B S B B S S M a C F e S C o B C D h S C h x x x x x x x x x x x x x \x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x xx x x xx x x x x \ x x xx x x [ 387 ] F FB FS M MB MS OB YB OS YS MaC FeC So D BCh SCh F FB FS M MB MS OB YB OS YS MaC FeC So D BCh SCh I _ _ _ I ANTHROPOLOGICAL RECORDS CATEGORY 3 CATEGORY 4 Male M F B S F F MM O Y O Y a e S C C F B S M B S B B S S C C o D h h F x x x x x x x x x x x FB x x x xx x x x FS x M x x x x x x x xx x MB x x x x x x MS x x x x OB x xx x xx YB x OS xx x x YS MaC FeC So D BCh SCh Female M F B S FEF MMO0YO0Y a eS C C F B SMB SB B SS CC oD h h F x x x x xx x xx x FB x x x ES x M xx x xx x xx xx x MB x x Ms xx x OB x x x YB x Os x xx x YS MaC FeC So D BCh SCh Male F FB FS M MB MS OB YB OS YS MaC FeC So D BCh SCh F F MM O Y O Y F B S M B S B B S S M a C F e S C o B C D h S C h x x x x x x xx x x \ x x x x \x x x x x x xx x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x xx x x x x Female F FB FS M MB MS OB YB OS YS MaC FeC So D BCh SCh F F M M O Y O Y F B S M B S B B S S M a C F e S C o B C D h S C h x x x x x x x x x x xx x xx x xx x x x x x x x x x x xx x x x I _ _ . 388 FREED: CHANGING WASHO KINSHIP CATEGORY 5 CATEGORY 6 Male M F B S F F M M O Y O Y a e S C C F B S M B S B B S S C C o D h h F x x FB x x FS x M x xx x x MB x x MS x x OB x x YB x x OS x YS x MaC x FeC x x x So D BCh SCh Female M F B S F F MM O Y O Y a e S C C F B S M B S B B S S C C o D h h F x x x x x x x FB x x FS x M x x x x x x x x x MB x MS x x OB x x YB x x OS x x YS x MaC FeC So xx D xx BCh Male F FB FS M MB MS OB YB OS YS MaC FeC So D BCh SCh F F M M O Y O Y F B S M B S B B S S M a C F e S C o B C D h S C h \ x x \x x x x x x x x x x x x Female M F B S F F MM O Y O Y a e S C C F B S M B S B B S S C C o D h h F x x x FB x x x FS x x x M x x x x x x MB x x MS x x OB x x x YB x x x x OS x x x x YS x x MaC x FeC So D x x BCh SCh . 389 ANTHROPOLOGICAL RECORDS CATEGORY 7 CATEGORY 8 Male M F B S F F M M O Y O Y a e S C C F B S M B S B B S S C C o D h h F x FB ES x MS x MB Ms OB YB OS YS MaC FeC So D BCh SCh Female M F B S F F M M O Y O Y a e S C C F B S M B S B B S S C C o D h h F x FB x x xx FS x M x MB xx MS x x x OB x x YB x x x OS x YS xx MaC xx FeC xx So x x D xx BCh SCh Male F FB FS M MB MS OB YB OS YS MaC FeC So D BCh SCh F F MM O Y O Y F B S M B S B B S S M a C F e S C o D B S C C h h x x x x x x x x x Female F FB FS M MB MS OB YB OS YS MaC FeC So D BCh SCh F F M M O Y O Y F B S M B S B B S S M a C F e S C o B C D h x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x xx x x x xx S C h . _ _ = I 39() FREED: CHANGING WASHO KINSHIP CATEGORY 9 CATEGORY 10 Male M F B S F F M M O Y O Y a e S C C F B S M B S B B S S C C o D h h F FB FS x x x x x M MB x x MS OB YB Os x 'OS \ x YS\ x MaC x FeC x So D BCh SCh Fe male M F B S F F M M O Y O Y a e S C C F B S M B S B B S S C C o D h h F x FB x x x x x x x x FS x x x x x x x x MB x x x x MS x x x x x OB YB Os YS MaC FeC x So x D x BCh SCh\ Male F FB FS M MB MS OB YB OS YS MaC FeC So D BCh SCh M F F F M M O Y O Y a e S F B S M B S B B S S C C o B S C C D h h x Female F FB FS M MB MS OB YB OS YS MaC FeC So D BCh SCh F F M M O Y O Y F B S M B S B B S S M a C F e S C o B C D h S C h x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x xx x . . . . . I I 391 ANTHROPOLOGICAL RECORDS CATEGORY 11 Male CATEGORY 12 Male FF M M O Y O Y F B S M B S B B S S M F a e S C C o B C D h S C h x xx x x x xNj\,\ x x I\ Female FF M M O Y O F B S M B S B B S M F Y a e S S C C o B C D h S C h x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x F FB FS M MB MS OB YB OS YS MaC FeC So D BCh SCh FF M M O Y O Y F B S M B S B B S S M a C F B S e S C C C o D h h x x x x x x x Female F FB FS M MB MS OB YB OS YS MaC FeC So D BCh SCh F F MM O Y O Y F B S M B S B B S S M a C F e S C o B C D h S C h x x x x x x x F FB FS M MB MS OB YB OS YS MaC FeC So D BCh SCh F FB FS M MB MS OB YB OS YS MaC FeC So D BCh SCh . . .. . I ~ ~ ~ ~ - I . I I . . - I I I 392 FREED: CHANGING WASHO KINSHIP CATEGORY 13 CATEGORY 14 Male M F B S F F M M O Y O Y a e S C C F B S M B S B B S S C C o D h h F x FB x FS x M x MB x MS x x x x OB YB OS x YS MaC FeC So D BCh SCh Female M F B S F F M M O Y O Y a e S C C F B S M B S B B S S C C o D h h F x FB x FS x M x MB x MS x x x x OB x YB x x Os x x x x YS x x MaC xx x x x FeC x x So D BCh SCh Male F FB FS M MB MS OB YB OS YS MaC FeC So D BCh SCh F F M M O Y O Y F B S M B S B B S S M a C F e S C o B C D h S C h x xxx x x x x x x x x x xx x x x x x x x x xx x x x x x x x xx x Female F FB FS M MB MS OB YB OS YS MaC FeC So D BCh SCh FF M M O Y O Y F B S M B S B B S S M a C F e S C o B C D h S C h x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x _ _ h .~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ _ . 393 ANTHROPOLOGICAL RECORDS CATEGORY 15 CATEGORY 16 Male M F B S F F MM O Y O Y a e S C C F B S M B S B B S S C C o D h h F x x FB FS x x M x x x MB Ms YE OS YS MaC FeC So D BCh SCh Female M F B S F F M M O Y O Y a e S C C F B S M B S B B S S C C o D h h- F x x x FE x x x x FS x x M x x MB x x x MS x x x x OB x x YB x x OS x x YS x x MaC FeC x x So x D x BCh SCh Male F FB FS M MB MS OB YB OS YS MaC FeC So D BCh SCh FF M M O Y O Y F B S M B S B B S S M a C F e C B S C o D h S C h X x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x xx x Female F FB FS M MB MS OB YB OS YS MaC FeC So D BCh SCh FF M M O Y O Y F B S M B S B B S S M a C F e C B S C o D h S C h x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x xx . I~ I _ _ _ . 394 FREED: CHANGING WASHO KINSHIP SUMMATION OF CATEGORIES: MALE AND FEMALE MALE vs. FEMALE F FB FS M MB MS OB YB OS YS MaC FeC So D BCh SCh Total F 0 1 8 9 2 8 6 10 11 11 9 11 14 14 133 FB 2 13 3 4 6 8 5 6 8 7 11 7 10 99 FS 19 1 2 5 3 4 3 3 9 13 3 3 81 M 18 13 11 11 12 12 14 14 10 12 15 16 190 MB 2 2 4 5 6 6 10 12 10 11 94 MS 1 7 3 9 8 9 12 15 16 13 121 OB 3 1 5 7 8 8 12 13 12 89 YB 4 7 6 2 6 11 8 86 OS 8 11 9 11 13 17 15 125 YS 1 3 3 3 3 1 72 MaC 1 8 6 2 2 93 FeC 8 4 2 3 95 So 9 7 113 D 8 6 132 BCh 130 SCh 121 CATEGORIES 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 F x FB x x FS M x MB MS x OB YB OS x x YS MaC x FeC x So D x BCh SCh I 395 APPENDIX III ROLE PROFILES This appendix contains the graphs of the means of each relative in all the categories of behavior. [ 396 ] 1 2 3 4 5 Category 6 7 6 9 10 I 1 12 13 14 IS 16 Graph 1. Role profile of father for males (solid line) and females (broken line). 1 2 3 4 5 Category 6 7 S 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Graph 2. Role profile of father's brother for males (solid line) and females (broken line). [ 397 1 1.2 5.0 .8 .6 .4 .2 C 0 o - -.4 -.6 ,86 1.2 - 1.0 - .8 .6 .4 .2 - C a o -.2 -.4 -.6 -.8 -I.0 - -1.2 V As ,.I , s ,, . _~~~~i I ,' % I _ s> , % \ i I - - 1- 2 I I I I I I I I - I I I I . -- I k 174 1 Nezlr it I 174 I.. - . If .1 .1 .1 .1 I I I I I I I - -1 - - I I a I/- - - - -\ , , f Category 2 3 4 5 6 7 a 9 10 1 i 12 13 14 15 16 Graph 3. Role profile of father's sister for males (solid line) and females (broken line). Category Graph 4. Role profile of mother for males (solid line) and females (broken line). [ 398 1 1.2 1.0 .8 .6 .4 .2 c a 0 0 -.2 -.4- -.6 -.8 -1.0 - -1.2 1.2 1.0 .6 .6 .4 .2 c a 0 0 -.8 -.6 -1.0 -1.2 Category 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1 1 12 13 14 15 IS Graph 5. Role profile of mother's brother for males (solid line) and females (broken line). Ca t e g o r y Graph 6. Role profile of mother's sister for males (solid line) and females (broken line). [ 399 1 1.2 1.0 .8 .6 .4 .2 a0 0 -.2 -.4 0 .2 -.2 -.4 Cate g or y 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 a 9 10 II 12 13 14 15 16 Graph 7. Role profile of older brother for males (solid line) and females (broken line). Category Graph 8. Role profile of younger brother for males (solid line) and females (broken line). [ 400 ] 1.2 1.0 .8 .6 .4 .2 c o 0 0 -.2 -.4 -.6 -.8 -1.0 -1.2 1.2 I.0 .8 .6 .4 .2 c o -.2 - .4 -.6 -.80 -1.0 -I .2 Category ; 2 3 4 5 6 7 a 9 10 11 12 13 14 IS 16 Graph 9. Role profile of older sister for males (solid line) and females (broken line). C a t e g o r y Graph 10. Role profile of younger sister for males (solid line) and females (broken line). [ 401 ] 1.2 1.0 .8 .6 .4 .2 c a 0 ' - -.6. -.8- 1.0. .2 1.2 I1.0 .4 - .6 - .4 - .2 - O 1.2 - .4 Z .4- Category Graph 11. Role profile of male cousin for males (solid line) and females (broken line). Category Graph 12. Role profile of female cousin for males (solid line) and females (broken line). [ 402 ] 1.2 I.0 .8 .6 .4 .2 c a 0 0 -.2 -.4 -.6 -.8 -1.0 -1.2 1.2 1.0 .8 .6 .4 .2 c a *) 0 2 3 4 5 Category 6 7 a 9 10 1 1 12 13 14 IS 16 Graph 13. Role profile of son for males (solid line) and females (broken line). Graph 14. Role profile of daughter for males (solid line) and females (broken line). [ 403 1 1.2 1.0 .8 .6 .4 .2 c o O 0 -.2 -.4 -.6 - -.8 - -I.0 - -1.2 i.2 - 1.0 - .8 .6 - .4 - .2 - c 0- .2- Category 2 3 4 5 6 7 S 9 10 II 12 13 14 I5 16 0 I A -2 -,.4 -1.0~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ _12L Graph 15. Role profile of brother's child for males (solid line) and females (broken line 1 2 - 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ' 12 13 14 15 1 1.2 - I .0 - .8- .6 - .4 - .2 - -.0 -1.2 Graph 16. Role profile of sister's child for males (solid line) and females (broken line). [ 404 ] e). APPENDIX IV GRAPHS OF THE SIXTEEN CATEGORIES OF ROLE BEHAVIOR This appendix contains the graphs of each category of role behavior with the relatives on the x axis. The abbreviations are the same as those used in Appendix I. [ 405 ] Re I a ti ve F FB FS M MB MHS 06 YB OS YS MoC FeC So D BCh I **. 2 - .2 - - _ 0 -~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ -1.02 Graph 17. Category 1 (to order) for males (solid line) and females (broken line). Relative F fB FS M MB MS OB YB OS YS MaC FeC So D BCh .2 1.0 8~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ .6 A .4 . , I , I .2I Cl\C o I-^ ' , 0 -2 -.6 -1.0 -1. 2 Graph 18. Category 2 (to teach) for males (solid line) and females (broken line). [ 406 ] Relative F FB FS M MB M S OB YB Os YS MoC FeC So D BCh .24 .0 , 2~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 2. Graph 19. Category 3 (to help) for males (solid line) and females (broken line). R e I a t i v e F F B F S M M B mI B0 Y B OS rs M oC F*C S o D B C h .42 2 0 -.4 -.8 -.0 -.2 .2 2 a .0 L -.4 .6 - -.8- -I1.0 - . 2 - Graph 20. Category 4 (to sympathize) for males (solid line) and females (broken line). [ 407 ] Relative F fO FS M MS MS OS Y B Os YS MaC FeC So D BCh 1.2 1.0 l\ .4 I o) 0 2 -6 - I .0 -1. 2 Graph 21. Category 5 (to like) for males (solid line) and females (broken line). Relative F FS FS M MS MS OS Y a S YS MoC FeC So D SCh i.2 1.0 .8 A .6 . I .4I .2 0 P, * 1 I - - - i.2 Graph 22. Category 6 (to cooperate) for males (solid line) and females (broken line). [ 408 ] R e I a t i v e Graph 23. Category 7 (to depend) for males (solid line) and females (broken line). R e I a t i v e Graph 24. Category 8 (to respect) for males (solid line) and females (broken line). [ 409 1 1.2 1.0 .8 .6 .4 . 2 C o 0 0 -. 2 -.4 -.6 - I. B -I 20 - 1. 2 I. 2 1.0 . 8 .6 .4 . 2 c 0 0 0 -.2 -.4 -.6 -.8 I .0 - ..2 Re I a t i v e F FS F S SSSMB M S 08 YB a O S YS Mac FeC So D Bch SCh Graph 25. Category 9 (to obey) for males (solid line) and females (broken line). Relative Graph 26. Category 10 (to want approval) for males (solid line) and females (broken line). [ 410 ] 1.2 1.0 .8 .6 .4 . 2 a 0 0D0 -.2 -.4 -.6 -,8a -1.0 -1.2 X. 2 1.0 .8 .6 .4 . 2 c a 0 -.2 -.4 -.6 -.8 - I . 0 - 1.2 Ro 9 tive F FS FS M MB M S 08 r8 Os YS MaC FeC So D BCh .. . . , I 0 I I | I I @I I 1.2 1.0 .8 -1.0 1. 2 Graph 27. Category 11 (to suspect wrongdoing) for males (solid line) and females (brok Relative F FB FS M MB MS 08 yB Os YS MaC FeC So D BCh 1.2 1.0 .8 .6 .4 -.86- z I -~ ~ ~ ~~~ I I ~ ~~~~~~~ I 0 I ~ ~~~~~~~~ I / .1/~~~~~~~~~1 1. 'I,,. Graph 28. Category 12 (to nag) for males (solid line) and females (broken line). [411 J ken line). Relative F FB FS M MB MS 08 YB OS YS MoC FeC So D OCh SCh A . . - -f I I I I I I Graph 29. Category 13 (to disapprove) for males (solid line) and females (broken line). R e I a t i v e Graph 30. Category 14 (to punish) for males (solid line) and females (broken line). [ 412 1 1.2 - 1.0 .8 - .6 - .4 0 .2 -.2 -.4 -.6 -.8 -I .0 -1.2 - I' II A I II ?I / I I I, .? / I I I / I .. I I N ..? / I I., I 1.2 1.0 .8 .6 .4 . 2 c a 0 0) -.2 -.4 -.6 -.8 I .0 - 1.2 R elative F FB FS M mB MS 08 YB OS YS MoC FeC So D BCh 1.2 1.0 .8 .6 0 0 .4D -.2~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~L -.8 -I .0 -12 Graph 31. Category 15 (to refuse help) for males (solid line) and females (broken lin R ela t i v e F FB FS M Ma MS 08 YB OS YS MaC FeC So 0 SCh 1.2 - 1.0 .6 I.2 - -.4 o I 2-2 Graph 32. Category 16 (to reject) for males (solid line) and females (broken line). [ 413 1 Le). BIBLIOGRAPHY BIBLIOGRAPHY Abbreviations American Anthropologist Bureau of American Ethnology, Bulletin Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute Field Museum of Natural History, Publications, Anthropological Series Public Museum of the City of Milwaukee, Bulletin Smithsonian Institution, Miscellaneous Collections Southwest Journal of Anthropology University of California Publications American Archaeology and Ethnology Anthropological Records University of California Archaeological Survey, Reports University of Washington, Publications in Anthropology Barrett, S. A. 1917. The Washo Indians. PMM-B 2:1-52. Bruner, Edward M. 1955. Two Processes of Change in Mandan-Hidatsa Kinship Terminology. AA 57:840-850. Caudill, William 1949. Psychological Characteristics of Acculturated Wisconsin Ojibwa Children. AA 51:409-427. Curtis, E. S. 1926. The North American Indian. Vol. 15. The Plimpton Press. Norwood, Mass. Dangberg, Grace 1927. Washo Texts. UC-PAAE 22:391-443. Dole, Gertrude E. MS. The Development of Patterns of Kinship No- menclature. Ph.D. diss. Univ. Michigan, Ann Arbor. Eggan, Fred 1937. Historical Changes in the Choctaw Kinship System. AA 39:34-52. Firth, Raymond 1951. Elements of Social Organization. Watts and Co., London. 1954. Social Organization and Social Change. JRAI 84:1-20. isher, Ronald A., and Frank Yates 1953. Statistical Tables for Biological, Agricultural, and Medical Research. Oliver and Boyd, Ltd., Edinburgh. ortes, Meyer, ed. 1949. Time and Social Structure: an Ashanti Case Study. In Social Structure: Studies Presented to A. R. Radcliffe-Brown. Clarendon Press, Oxford. Freedman, M. B., T. F. Leary, A. G. Ossorio, and H. S. Coffey 1951. The Interpersonal Dimension of Personality. Jour. of Personality, 20:143-161. Goodenough, Ward H. 1956. Residence Rules. SWJA 12:22-37. Gough, E. K. 1952. Changing Kinship Usages in the Setting of Political and Economic Change Among the Nayars of Malabar. JRAI 82:71-88. Hallowell, A. I. 1942. Acculturation Processes and Personality Changes as Indicated by the Rorschach Tech- nique. Rorschach Research Exchange, 6:42-50. Heizer, Robert F., and Albert B. Elsasser 1953. Some Archaeological Sites and Cultures of the Central Sierra Nevada. UCAS-R 21. Kroeber, A. L. 1907. The Washo Language of East Central Cali- fornia and Nevada. UC-PAAE 4:251-317. 1917. California Kinship Systems. UC-PAAE 12:339-396. 1925. Handbook of the Indians of California. BAE-B 78. Reprinted (1953) by the California Book Co., Ltd., Berkeley, Calif. Lowie, Robert H. 1928. A Note on Relationship Terminologies. AA 30:263- 267. 1939. Ethnographic Notes on the Washo. UC-PAAE 36:301-352. Merriam, C. Hart MS. Notes from the files of the late Dr. C. Hart Merriam, at the Smithsonian Institution. Files now at the Anthropology Museum, Univ. Calif. Berkeley, Calif. [ 417 ] AA BAE-B JRAI FMNH- PAS PMM-B SI-MC SWJA UC - PAAE -AR UCAS-R UW-PA ANTHROPOLOGICAL RECORDS Mooney, James 1928. The Aboriginal Population of America North of Mexico. SI-MC. Vol. 80, no. 7. Murdock, George P. 1949. Social Structure. The Macmillan Co., New York. 1955. Changing Emphases in Social Structure. SWJA 11:361-370. Nett, Betty R. 1952. Historical Changes in the Osage Kinship Sys- tem. SWJA 8:164-181. Radcliffe-Brown, A. R. 1935. Kinship Terminologies in California. AA 37:530- 535. Sapir, Edward 1916. Terms of Relationship and the Levirate. AA 18:327- 337. 1929. Central and North American Languages. En- cyclopaedia Britannica (14th ed.), 5:138-141. Reprinted (1949) in Selected Writings of Ed- ward Sapir in Language, Culture, and Per- sonality. David G. Mandelbaum, ed. Univer- sity of California Press, Berkeley, Calif. Schmitt, Karl and Iva 0. n. d. Wichita Kinship, Past and Present. Univer- sity Book Exchange, Norman, Oklahoma. Schneider, David M., and George C. Homans 1955. Kinship Terminology and the American Kin- ship System. AA 57:1194-1208. Schneider, David M., and John M. Roberts 1956. Zu-ni Kin Terms. Laboratory of Anthropology. Notebook No. 3, Monograph 1. University of Nebraska. Lincoln, Nebraska. Simpson, J. H. 1876. Report of Explorations Across the Great Basin of the Territory of Utah for a Direct Wagon-Route from Camp Floyd to Genoa, in Carson Valley, in 1859. Government Print- ing Office, Washington, D. C. Siskin, Edgar E. 1938. Washo Territory. AA 40:626-627. MS. The Impact of the Peyote Cult upon Shama- nism among the Washo Indians. Ph. D. diss. (1941). Yale Univ. New Haven, Conn. Spier, Leslie 1925. The Distribution of Kinship Systems in North America. UW-PA 1:69-88. Spoehr, Alexander 1947. Changing Kinship Systems. FMNH-PAS 33:151-235. Stewart, Omer C. 1941. Culture Element Distributions: XIV, Northern Paiute. UC-AR 4:361-446. 1944. Washo-Northern Paiute Peyotism: A Study in Acculturation. UC-PAAE 40:63-142. 418