F OR very nearly a century the development of Crow kinship terminology has been a dominant theoretical concern of social anthropology (e.g. Morgan 1871; Kohler 1897; Rivers 1914, 1924:61; Lowie 1917a, 1928:265, 1930, 1932; White 1939, 1959:133; Murdock 1949; Lane and Lane 1959; Eyde and Postal 1961; Moore 1963).2 Attempts to account for Crow systems have specified causal relationships between the terminology and preferential marriage systems, lineage organization, and residence rules. Crow terminology, it has been suggested, is a result of variations in the above variables, operating individually, or in various combinations. Theoreticians have either assumed that (1) the determinative social institutions were, in most cases, found in association with the terminology, or (2) that when the terminology occurred in the absence of the specified institutions, survivals were to be expected; they were often found. Alternatively ethnologists have suggested that the absence of either the terminology or the determinative institution was a consequence of one extinguishing the other. For example, although an asymmetric alliance system i.e., matrilateral marriage causes the development of Crow terminology, under certain conditions, Crow terminology extinguishes the matrilateral preference [cf. Eyde and Postal 1961]. Thus, both the development of Crow terminology, and the non-association of asymmetric alliance and Crow systems are explained. There is one basic objection to all of the above interpretations. Virtually all previous attempts to account for Crow systems have seriously truncated the terminology. At most, four or five terminological assignments have been accounted for. An acceptable theory must account for all of the consanguineal assignments of all Crow systems. An acceptable genetic model should be formal, explicit, complete, and simple. An acceptable developmental model should structure the variability between the systems which the genetic model generates, allowing us to sequentially order Crow systems within a logical taxonomic hierarchy, as chemical elements are ordered within the periodic table.
Read full abstract