Kinship, Language, and Salish Prehistory (Orchard 2001)

Kinship,Language, and Salish Prehistory TrevorJ. Orchard The analysi.sof kinship relations and kinship terminolog, has long been a central .focus r/ anthropological inquin'. Additionally, linguistic relationships and c'hanges in languageshave ofien heen argued to reflect prehi,storicintergroup relalictn,ships and groups moNement,t.Thispaper seeks to prtnide a hasic anall.sis o/ selected kin terms .ftr ./ive Northu,est Ooast longuages, nantely Spokane, Shusv'up, Saanich, Ahrmsaht,and Ditidaht. In addition, the role that such lingttistic data can play in addressing the larger qttestir.tnsof the region.s prehistorl,u'ill be addressed. Specifically, the linguistic data presented u,ill be analr-zed .f,'on the per.spective of Elmendor/"s ( I 961) hy,pothesi.s regarding the prehistoric relationships between[nterior and Coastal SaI ish I anguages. c o n t r a s t i n gs y s t e m s o f k i n s h i p t e r m i n o l o g y . w i l l b e examinedin the contextof the linsuisticdataoresented. lntroduction .I-his paper seeks to provide a general analysis and discussionof a selectionof kin terms for five Northwest Coastlanguages.The goal is primarily to exploresomeof the rneansthat have been employedfor the classification a n d d i s c u s s i o no f k i n s h i p t e r m i n o l o g i e sa, s w e l l a s t o addressthe fbrm that suchterminologiescommonlytake in the area of the central NorthwestCoast and the adjacent l n t e r i o rP l a t e a u .I n a d d i t i o n .t h e r o l e t h a t s u c h l i n g u i s t i c s t u d i e sp. a r t i c u l a r l sy t u d i e so f k i n t e r m i n o l o g i e sm. a y p l a y i r r t h e l a r g e rq u e s t i o no f t h e r e g i o n ' sp r e h i s t o r yw i l l b e explored. Specificall1,.the hypothesis put forth by E l r r e n d o r f ( 1 9 6| ) . w h i c h e x a m i n e s t h e p r e h i s t o r i c relationshipbetweenInteriorand CoastalSalishlanguages and the waf in which this relationshipis reflected in Trevor (torchard;ctttvic.cu)is u graduatestudentin the Depurtment of Anthropolog; al lhe University of Victoria. Hi.s generul acudentic inlerests include Northwest ('oast urc'hueologvuntl :oourc'hueolog,',u,ith current regional intarast.\in Huidu Gv'uii qnd lhe Aleutian urchipelago. He i,st'urrenllr c'omplelinghis Mttslers thesis,u,hich int'olves :oourt:hoeologic'ul unult'sis tt/' .fish remains .from ./it'e .4leutian lsluntts.siles. Trevor is ul.so planning on c'ontlut'lingtr reseurchprogram involving lqte pre-contacl to curlt' ('onlucl perirttl ent'irrtnntental urchaeologt in Gwuii Hannas, Haitla Gv'aii, as part o/ his upcttnring Doc'trtrulslucliesut the LJniver'sih' d'Toronto. Acknowledgemenls I wruld purticularl.t'like to expressmv gralilttde to Dr. Thom He.ss,u'ho is solelv responsible./br nty inlerest in anthropologic'allingui.slit's,and u'ho provided me v'ilh the hut'kgrounclkntnrlctlgeund linguislic dota lhat I applied to tht, t'ompleliono/'this puper. I v.oultl al.sctlike trt thank the ltt'o unownous retictrers v'hct reud earlier dra/i's o/ this pupar. Their cotnntenls und sttggeslions.though nol ult'u.t'sin line v'ilh nn'ov'n t'isiort/br this pQper, v'ere gr eully utrtprcc' i uted. The Data For the purposes of the following analysis and comparison,a set of kin terms were compiled from a variety of publishedand unpublishedsources. The five languagesincludedin this studyprovidea usefulsampleas they representthe rangeof variationthat is presentacross the study area.' Specifically,Interior Salishis represented by the languagesof Spokane and Shuswap,with data derived from published sources by Carlson and Flett ( 1989) and Kuipers ( 1975) respectively. The three additionallanguages. Saanichrepresenting the CoastSalish divisionand Ahousahtand Ditidahtrrepresenting Southern Wakashan,are derivedfrom unpublisheddatacompiledby Hess (n.d. a. b, and c). The set of terms selectedfor analysiswere restricted"fbr easeof comparison,to terms representingego's consanguinealrelativesof the second ascending generation through the second descending generation.Where kin terms vary with the genderof ego, both sets of terms were recorded.' The set of kin data e m p l o y e di n t h i s a n a l y s i si s s u m m a r i z e di n T a b l e l . T h e in Table I arisesfrom the appearance of incompleteness hierarchicalnatureofthe categoriespresented on the chart. in the dataitself. and doesnot reflectan incompleteness Each of the five sets of data are referred to above as distinct languages,and this practicewill be continuedin it is of use here the remainderof the paper. Nevertheless. to examine in more detail their relationshipsto accepted languageand languagefamily divisions. Thompsonand Kinkade (1990) provide a sum.maryof the language divisionsof the NorthwestCoast." They indicatethat the WakashanLanguageFamily is divided into two branches. the Kwakiutlanand the Nootkan.eachof which is further divided into three languages(Thompson and Kinkade ( 1 9 7 9 ) m a k e sa s i m i l a rd i v i s i o n , 1 9 9 0 :3 4 - 3 5 ) . J a c o b s e n but also refers to the Kwakiutlan branch as Northern Wakashanand the Nootkanbranchas SouthernWakashan. Of particularinteresthereis the consistentsubdivisionof SPRING2OO1 31 a3 L 6 u -o a 6 ! ci C6 d co 5JJ U f! = 6 ,(, G L 6 € ? a -.c a tr a >t G d LE r- A L a Y, , - tr '/. tr LL -g - a I O &, .O r r J .= r o x r'0) O x a9 r + - I a r c) c) .O a O x x .c) r'o r O O x x r .q) x G a O .= r -v, E O o .o u O .CJ .O = = r c .0 c) r.c) G z a) E = o +m |4 o o 'c) r 6 t J o .c) -+. + r 6 r x c- 9 o ,(.) .(J r o r o a r g = .- C\, I r X C3 + O x, ;z a) N r x t:Z + -t6 r c G r d .9 >r - a J r + Cg -t- -t- , J '9 = = J E - :; e -cl s V 6 O .tr r 6 = cg -tcg o- r G G N a r = = = J * J >r c) G + q o- r o 0) L O ! 'a ! L L a a) L O O a) (, a o o U) z CJ U) > otj cd (r) Q a U t, co 0) (,) L L c0 e U 0) c,) O o z a .9 U : 'E a_) a (, U b o : ! 'c G O O I E O tr U G 0) : : 'E '= (-) a U (-) (! L (, a () o the Nootkanbranchinto the Nootka, Ditidaht.and Makah languages.The SouthernWakashandata selectedfbr this s t u d y f a l l s w i t h i n t w o o f t h e s et h r e e l a n g u a g ed i v i s i o n s , u,ith Ahousahtrepresentinga dialect of Nootka or Nuuthe Ditidaht chah-nLrlth. and the Ditidaht data representing l a n g u a g eT. h o m p s o na n d K i n k a d e( 1 9 9 0 :3 4 - 3 5 )s i m i l a r l y divide the SalishanLanguageFarnily into fbur branches. n a m e l l ' B e l l a C o o l a . C e n t r a l S a l i s h . T s a m o s a na n d 'fillanrook. w i t h t h e B e l l a C o o l a a n d T i l l a m o o kb r a n c h e s r e p r e s e n t i nsci n g l e i s o l a t e dl a n g u a g e s .T h i s d i v i s i o n i s basedstrictlyon datafor the NorthwestCoastculturearea, and a llfth branchof the SalishanFarnily.lnterior Salish.is generally recognized in the interior Plateau region ( K i n k a d ee t a l . 1 9 9 8 :T h o m p s o n1 9 7 9 ) .T h e C e n t r a S l alish b r a n c hi s f u r l h e rd i v i d e di n t o t e n l a n g u a g e so,n e o f w h i c h . N o r t h e r nS t r a i t s c. o n t a i n st h e S a a n i c hd i a l e c t( T h o m p s o n a n d K i n k a d e 1 9 9 0 :3 4 - 3 - 5 ) .O f f i n a l i n t e r e s tT. h o r n p s o n ( l9l9: 693) divides the Interior Division into two s u b d i v i s i o n st .h e N o r l h e r n .w h i c h c o n t a i n st h e L i l l o o e t . Thompson.and Shuswap languages.and the Southern. , a l i s p e l ,a n d w h i c h c o n t a i n st h e C o l u m b i a n ,O k a n a g a nK C o e u r d ' A l e n e l a n g u a g e (sc f . K i n k a d ee t a l . 1 9 9 8 ) . I n a languageof ternrsofthe currentdata.Shuswaprepresents the Northern subdivision of the Interior Salish branch. Spokaneis recognisedas a dialect closely relatedto the K a l i s p e la n d F l a t h e a dd i a l e c t sa. l l o f w h i c h a r e g e n e r a l l y s u b s u r n e du n d e r t h e K a l i s p e l l a n g u a g e( K i n k a d e e t a l . 1 9 9 8 : 5 7 ) . r v h i c h i s w i t h i n t h e S o u t h e r ns u b d i v i s i o no f l r o u po f d i a l e c t si s a r g u e dt o l n t e l i o rS a l i s h .T h e K a l i s p e g d'Oreille, by some authors containa fburth dialect. Pen_d ( R o s s 1 9 9 8 ;M a l o u f 1 9 9 8 ) . ' T h i s d i v i s i o n o f l a n g u a g e fanrilies is accepted.fbr the purposesof this paper. as representinuthe true relationshipsbetween languagesin the study area. There have. however. been alternate s c h e m c sp r e s e n t e (dT h o m p s o n1 9 7 9 ;S w a d e s h1 9 5 0 :a l s o see the critique of Swadeshby Suttles and Elmendorf sut l 9 ( r i ) . O f p a r l i c u l a irn t e r e s th. o w e v e r i.s t h e e m p h a s i p b 1 ' t h e s ea n d o t h e ra u t h o r s( S u t t l e s1 9 8 7 a :D r u c k e r1 9 6 5 ) . l alish. o n t h es p l i tb e t r v e e lnn t e r i o rS a l i s ha n dC o a s t aS I ' h o u g ht h e r e i s n o b a s i st b r a s s u m i n ga n y s y s t e m a t i c problerrrswith the data sumnrarisedhere. the use of a variety of recordingtechniquesand the existenceof very sinrilar but diff'erentdialects of many languagesin the study'area can lead to a certain degree of uncertainty w i t h i n s u c hd a t a . l n o r d e rt o c l a r i f yt h i s p r o b l e m .s e v e r a l exarnplesare presentedu,hich demonstratethe types of i n c o n s i s t e n c i ewsh i c h a r e c o m l n o n l y e n c o u n t e r e d . A varietyof'nrethodshavebeenemployedin the recordingof the sound systernsof the laneuagesin the study area. Though such variationsare often reconcilable.they can l e a dt o i n c o n s i s t e n c i iens p u b l i s h e da n d u n p u b l i s h e d a t a . of long vowel l'his is eremplified by the representation soundsin the Ahousahtand Ditidaht data presentedhere. For eranrole. Hess records the Ahousaht word for "grandparcnt"as naniiclsu.while the Ditidahtequivalentin g i v e n a s d u d c . 7 c 1( H s e s sn . d . b a n d c ) . I n t h e A h o u s a h t 34 data the conventionof duplicatinga long vowel sound is used, whereas in the Ditidaht data a long vowel is representedby a symbol (.), though these forms are e q u i v a l e n (t H e s s p e r s . c o m m . ) . F o r c o n s i s t e n c yt .h e s e variationshave beenstandardized to the Ahousahttbrrr in the datapresentedin Table l. A similar inconsistency rnay existin the InteriorSalishdata,whereKuipers( 1975)often uses "ts" in his Shuswapdata when Carlson and Flett ( 1 9 8 9 ) u s e " c " i n t h e i r S p o k a n ed a t a . T h i s i s s e e ni n a comparisonof the Shuswapterm qetsk ("older brother") with the Spokanetermsqdc't(male ego) andqdceT(female ego); and of the Shuswapterm sirlse ("youngerbrother") with the Spokane term since7. There is clearll, a relationshipbetweenthe Shuswap"ts" and the Spokane "c". and it seemslikely that thesetwo forms representthe s a m es o u n d . " Such variationsor inconsistencies are also found in comparisonsof the terms presentedfor singlelanguagesin differentsources.This is exemplifiedin a comparisonof a number of the Spokaneterms presentedby Carlson and F l e t t( 1 9 8 9 )w i t h t h o s eu t i l i s e db y E l m e n d o r (f 1 9 6 1 ) . T h i s m a y b e o u t l i n e da s f o l l o w s : ' Elmendorf Carlsonand F l e t t( 1 9 8 9 ) sx6pe si.la sxdpe? MoFa FaMo qiin.a qdne? MoMo ccryo sarn6?t sme?* ssi sR.riR" i S K U K I ( r e r6) FaFa FaBr MoBr MnFaSi WmFaSi MoSi MnSibChi tti.tik"a q6xa WmSiSo tLi.ns sk"se?dlt WmSiDa stm?de?Olt sile? ccyer ssi? tetike? qaxe? tunS ^,'1 s q w s( e l t stmd?elt There is a large degreeof similarity betweenthe two sets of data presented,but there are also a number of variations. Elmendorf( 196l). for exarnple.does not use the symbol "e" in any of his terms,but ratherusesone of o r " 6 " w h e r e v e rC a r l s o na n d F l e t t( 1 9 8 9 )u t i l i s e "e" the symbol. Other diff-erences include Carlson and Flett'smore frequentuseof "?" and Elmendorfsuseof "e" and of ''.". Nevertheless. the fact that thesedifferencesare relativelysystematic.and that the two setsof dataare seen t o b e l a r g e l ys i m i l a r i s r e a s s u r i n g .A s i m i l a rp r o b l e mi s encounteredin comparingthe Shuswapand Spokanedata presentedhere with that outlined by Boas and Haeberlin (1927). For example. in comparing the terms for "daughter."Boasand Haeberlinprovidethe Shuswapterm stlemki llt and the Spokanetenn .slitntcaa7il, which can be CULTURALREFLECTIONS c o r n p a r ew d i t h t h e S h u s w a pt e r n s l e m k i h ( K u i p e r s1 9 7 5 ) and the Spokaneternt slmtTlll (Carlsonand Flett 1989) providedabove. Boasand Haeberlinalsoprovidethe Lkun qen ternrstbr "lather." ntun. and"mother,"1,/r,which may be corrrparedwith Hess' (n.d. a) Saanichterms mdn and t t n . n P e r h a p sr r o r e p r o b l e r n a t i ics B o a s a n d H a e b e r l i n ' s ( 1 9 2 7 ) u s e o f t h e S p o k a n et e r m t c t : t c I a f o r t h e g l o s s " g r a n d n r o t h e r . 'l"n c o r n p a r i s o nC. a r l s o na n d F l e t t ( 1 9 8 9 ) "grandrnother"in their Spokane do not includea term for "father's data. but rather include the two terms for "mother's nrother."(lt"e 7, the latter of nrother."clinc 7. and which appearsto correspondmost closely with the term providedby Boas and Haeberlin(1927). A final caseof s u c hv a r i a t i o ni s e v i d e n c e di n l g n a n c e ' s( 1 9 9 8 )d e s c r i p t i o n terms for parent'ssiblingsas opposedto those of Shus'uvap o u t l i n e db y K u i p e r s( 1 9 7 5 ) . l ' h e t w o s e t s o f t e r m s a r e l a r g e l yi d e n t i c a lb. u t I g n a c e( 1 9 9 8 :2 l l ) i n d i c a t e st h e u s e of two terms for mother's sister. namely tetum (female ego) and ,tlr'c (rnale ego). comparedto the single term. Despite this rIkve7. given by Kuipers (1975: l4). propensity'fbr variation. however. the data presentedin Table I will be acceptedas accuratefor the purposesof t h i sp a p e r . GeneralDiscussionsof Kinship A nunrberof approacheshave been employed in the c l a s s i l r c a t i o na n d d e s c r i p t i o no f s y s t e m s o f k i n s h i p t e r n r i n o l o g y . S e v e r a lo f t h e s e m o d e l s w i l l b e o u t l i n e d bricfly and applied to the kinship data sumrnarizedin l'able I . One of the sirrplestsystems.originallyproposed by L. H. Morgan. involves the distinctionbetween and descriptivefortnsof kinshipterminology classiticatorl' (Good,,' 191l: 299). Classificatory terminologies classtogetherlineal and collateralrelatives s-,'sternaticalll ( Keesing I 97-5: | 02). whereasdescriptiveterminologies assign ditterent terms to lineal and collateral relatives (Ciood1,l97 l: 299). The five languagesanalysedin this paper all lall into the category of classificatory t e r r n i n o l o g i e sT. h i s i s e v i d e n c e db y t h e t e n d e n c yw i t h i n t h e s e l a n g u a g e sf o r s i b l i n g sa n d c o u s i n st o b e c l a s s e d " o l d e rs i b l i n g s " t o g e t h e r .I n t h e S a a n i c hd a t a .f b r e x a l n p l e , " s e n i o r l i n e c o u s i n s "u n d e rt h e t e r m 5 l a l . a r eg r o u p e dw i t h ''youngercousins"are grouped ancl"voungersiblings"arrd undertlre Iern sa1llcan (seeTable l). T h i s e a r l y ' d i s t i n c t i o nl e a d t o t h e d e v e l o p r r r e notf typologiesrvhich furlher subdividedthe variety of kinship svstelrs rvithin the categor)'of classificatoryterminologies' S p i e r ( 1 9 2 5 ) . f b r e x a m p l e .d e v e l o p e da n a p p r o a c ht h a t g r o u p sk i n s h i ps y s t e m so n t h e b a s i so f t h e w a y i n w h i c h kin of ego's own generationwere classified.that is, based o r 1 t h e i r c o u s i n t e r m i n o l o g i e s . S p e c i f i c a l l y .S p i e r "types" of kin terminology systems. i d e n t i f l e de i g h t i n c l u d i n gt l r e O r n a h a .C r o r v . S a l i s h . A c o m a . Y u m a n . M a c k e n z i eB a s i n . l r o q u o i s . a n d E s k i r n o t y p e s . w h i c h accountedfor all of the patternswitnessedfbr the available North Americandata(Spier 1925). This modelwas further developedby Murdock into a more generalsystemwhich consistedof eight categorieswhich were applicableon a g fo b a l b a s i s ( G o o d y 1 9 7 l : 3 0 0 - 3 0 1 ) . M u r d o c k ' s categoriessimilarly includeda numberof "types." namely the Hawaiian. Eskirno. Iroquois, Crow. Ornaha, and Sudanesetypes, as well as categoriesfor descriptive systemsand for mixed or variant patterns(Goody 197l: 3 0 0 - 3 0 1 ) . T h i s m o d e l h a s s e e n w i d e s p r e a du s e w i t h i n ethnographic and kinship studies. and has come to r e p r e s e n tt h e d o m i n a n t m e a n s o f c l a s s i f y i n gk i n s h i p s y s t e m s( G o o d y l 9 7 l ; K e e s i n g1 9 7 5 : 1 0 4 - 1 2 0P ; eoples ; o w a r d 1 9 9 3 :1 5 3 - 1 5 5H ; arris a n d B a i l e y 1 9 9 4 : 2 4 2 - 2 4 4H 1993:.285-281). Comparing the five sets of kin terms presentedhere to the generalsystemof kinship t)pes as describedby People and Bailey (1994: 242-244)^it is apparentthat the generalpatternevidentin the Wakashan and Salish data is not pafticularly easily classified.but perhapsmost closely resernblesthe Hawaiian type. In particular,the tendencyof these languagesto group both crossand parallelcousinsunderthe terms usedfor siblings is reflectiveof the Hawaiian system(Peoplesand Bailey 1994:242-243).This is reflectedin Arirna and Dewhirst's ( 1990: 399) indication that the Wakashan people of WesternVancouverIslanddernonstrate. to somedegree.a H a w a i i a n s y s t e m . a n d i n A c k e r m a n ' s s t a t e m e n t .i n referenceto the Plateauregion in general,that "generation i s s t r e s s e dr ,e s u l t i n gi n a H a w a i i a nc o u s i ns y s t e m "( 1 9 9 8 : 5 l 8 ) . T h e g r o u p i n go f p a r e n t ' ss i b l i n g su n d e r a s i n g l e tenn in Ahousaht.Ditidaht. and Saanich.and the use of separate terrns for father's brother. mother's brother. father'ssisterand mother'ssisterin Shuswapand Spokane is more problematic.however,and neitherof thesepatterns is well representedin the general system presentedby Peoplesand Bailey (1994). This variabilityis perhapsbest dealt with by Arima and Dewhirst who. in discussinethe "kinship Southern Wakashan languages, state that terminologyis lineal in parents'generationand Hawaiian i n e g o ' sg e n e r a t i o n("1 9 9 0 :3 9 9 ) . A more satisfactorysolution may be achieved by ofthe earliersystemproposed returningto a consideration b y S p i e r( 1 9 2 5 ) . I n p a r t i c u l a rt.w o o f t h e t y p e so f k i n s h i p terminologiesproposedby Spier, namely the Salish and MackenzieBasintypes.are of particularinteresthere. l'he Salishtype is definedby Spieras follows: SPRING2OO1 This ISalish type] is characterizedby the m e r g i n g o f f a t h e r ' sa n d m o t h e r ' s s i b l i n g s : "aunt" and that is, there is only one term for "uncle." Converselythere is but one one for term for nephewor niece. There are terms "grandchild." for "grandparent.""child." and Brothersand sistersare usuallydistinguished "younger sibling." as "older sibling" and Siblingtermsare appliedto both paralleland c r o s sc o u s i n s( 1 9 2 5 :74 ) . 35 C o r n p a r i n gt h i s t o t h e d a t a p r e s e n t e di n T a b l e l . i t i s evident that the Saanich kin term system corresponds p a r l i c u l a r l lw e l l w i t h S p i e r ' sS a l i s ht y p e . O n e d i f f e r e n c e is the useof a singleterm. in the Saanichdata,to represent bolfi "uncle" and "aunt." The Ahousahtand Ditidahtdata a l s o c o r r e s p o n dqsu i t e c l o s e l yw i t h t h e S a l i s ht y p e . w i t h s l i g h t v a r i a t i o n so c c u r r i n g . T h e s e m i n o r d i f f e r e n c e s terms fbr "nephew"and "niece" includethe useof separate o f s i b l i n g sa n d c o u s i n sb a s e do n g e n d e r . a n dt h e d i s t i n c t i o n In addition. the Ahousaht sibling and cousin terms a slightly diff'erentfbrm, and in fact appearto delnonstrate bc largely'incomplete. Spier generally agreeswith the of the classiflcationof these languagesas representative S a l i s ht y p e .a s h e i n c l u d e sS o n g i s h a. d i a l e c to f N o r t h e r n S t r a i t sa l o n gw i t h S a a n i c ha. n d N o o t k a .o f w h i c h A h o u s a h t is a dialect. as eramples of this type ( 1925: 74). I n t e r e s t i n g l l 'S. p i e r a l s o i n c l u d e s S h u s w a p w i t h i n h i s r.r'iththe note that in this and a few other Salish t-n.'pe. 'grandfather'and 'grandntother,' languages"two terms. are used" (1925: 14). J'he Shuswapdata provided by K u i p e r s( 1 9 7 5 ) .h o u ' e v e rs. h o w st n o r ev a r i a b i l i t yt h a n t h e simpleuseof two terrnsfbr parent'sparents. In parlicular. parent'ssiblings terms are seen to be f'ar rnore cotnplex " a u n t " d i c h o t o m y ,a n d c o u s i n t h a n a s i r n p l e" u n c l e " a n d tenrs do lrot correspondto sibling terms. Thus, Shuswap does not appear to f-it rvell within the Salish type as o u t l i n e db y S p i e r( 1 9 2 5 ) . S p i e rf u r l h e r i n d i c a t e st h a t t h e S a l i s ht y p e r r r f i n c l u d e S p o k a n( h i s s p e l l i n g )a s w e l l (192-5:7,1).but the Spokanedata presentedhereappearsto be evenmore variablethan the Shuswapdata. It is also of r p i e r ' sM a c k e n z i eB a s i nt y p e ,w h i c h u s e .t h e n .t o c o n s i d e S is definedas follorvs: T'hc characteristicfeature here is that all c o u s i n s .p a r a l l e l a n d c r o s s . a r e s i b l i n g s . Four ternrs are ordinarily entployed fbr these. older brother. older sister. younger brother. and younger sister. Parentsare fathel and trother: children are son and daughter. Parents' siblings are usually father's brother. tather's sister. mother's sister. and tnother's brother. Nepotic r e l a t i v e sa r e c o m m o n l y c a l l e d b y s p e c i a l tenrs. Grandparentsare grandfatherand g r a n d m o t h e rg: r a n d c h i l d r e na r e c a l l e d b y o n et c n n ( S p i e r1 9 2 - 57:6 ) . that: S p i c rf i r n h e rc l a r i f i e st h i s t y p e w i t h t h e i n d i c a t i o n The majority of the Califbrnian and other western tribes that have this system have father's father, fbur terrns fbr grandparents, father's nrother. rnother's mother. and nrother'sfather. Theseare usedreciprocally, r v i t h b u t f e w e x c e p t i o n sf.o r a m a n ' s s o n ' s c h i l d " a w o m a r r ' ss o n ' s c h i l d . a w o m a n ' s d a u g h t e r ' sc h i l d . a n d a m a n ' s d a u g h t e r ' s child respectively(Spier 1925:77). This system is seen to correspondquite well with the Shuswapand the Spokanedata. In particular.Shuswapis seento employ two parent'sparentsterms while Spokane employs four, as in the two variants of the Mackenzie Basin type listed above. Furthermore.the use of child's child terms by thesetwo languagescorespondsto the one term and four term varieties,which correspondto these two MackenzieBasin variants. ln addition.both of these languagesgenerally employ the four basic terms for p a r e n t ' ss i b l i n g s . " T h u s . t h o u g h S p i e r ( 1 9 2 5 ) c l a s s i f i e d Shuswapas a Salish type kin term system.and it does show sonresimilaritieswith such a system.I would argue that it is better describedby the MackenzieBasin type. Spokane.despite Spier's tentative classificationin the Salishtype, is even more representative of this Mackenzie Basin form. Interestingly.though Spier does tentatively p l a c eS p o k a n ei n t h e S a l i s ht y p e , K a l i s p e li s p l a c e dw i t h i n the Mackenzie Basin system (Spier 1925: 77), and as argued above, these representtwo mutually intelligible dialectsof a singlelanguage. A third and flnal meansof classifyingkin term systems leadsus into discussionsof the use of kinship studiesfor e x a m i n i n gp r e h i s t o r y . G o o d y ( 1 9 71 : 2 9 9 ) a t t r i b u t e tsh i s systemto Lowie and Kirchhofl and indicatesthat it was originally applied simply to male relativesin ego's first ascendinggeneration. Lowie and Kirchhoffs system consistedof four categories:generational.which grouped father.father'sbrother,and mother'sbrotherinto a single term for father: bifurcatemerging. which grouped father and father's brother but had a separateterm for mother's brother;bif'urcatecollateral.which utilised three separate terms fbr thesekin; and lineal.which had an isolatedterm for fatherand groupedparent'sbrothersinto a singleternr. u n c l e( G o o d y l 9 7 l : 3 0 0 ) . T h i s s y s t e mw a s l a t e re x p a n d e d to includeboth male and femalekin of the first ascending g e n e r a t i o nT . h i s i s s u r n m a r i z esdi m p l y b y D o n a l d( 1 9 9 1 ) who indicatesthat in bif'urcatemerging systemsFaSi I MoSi. FaBr *MoBr, FaBr - Fa, and MoSi : Mo: in bifurcatecollateralsystemsFaSi I MoSi. FaBr * MoBr. F a B r * F . a n d M o S i * M : i n l i n e a ls y s t e m sF a S i- M o S i . FaBr : MoBr. FaBr I Fa, and MoSi * Mo; and in generationalsvstemsFaSi - MoSi. FaBr - MoBr. FaBr F a . a n d M o S i - M o . A p p l y i n g t h i s s y s t e mt o t h e d a t a presentedin Table l. then,we seethat Ahousaht,Ditidaht, a n d S a a n i c ha l l u t i l i s el i n e a ls y s t e m sw, h e r e a st h e S h u s w a p and Spokanesystemsare bifurcate collateral. The only exceptionis seen in Shuswap'suse of a single term for f a t h e r ' ss i s t e ra n d m o t h e r ' ss i s t e r .b u t t h i s i s r e m e d i e di f the Shuswap terms outlined by lgnace ( 1998) are considered.This distinctionbetweena linealsystemin the coastal groups and a bifurcate collateral system in the interiorgroups is supportedby Suttles(1990). Arima and ( 1998). . n dA c k e r r n a n D e w h i r s (t 1 9 9 0 ) a CULTURALREFLECTIONS Linguisticsand Prehistory/Elmendorf's Hypothesis It is this final classificationsystern.and particularlythe linealversusbifurcatecollateralsplit seenbetweencoastal and interiorgroups.which is emphasized by Elmendorf ( 1 9 6I ) i n h i s d i s c u s s i oonf S a l i s hp r e h i s t o r y .I n d i s c u s s i n g lirrealand bifurcatecollateralsystems,however,Elmendorf ertendsthesetypesto includeboth the first and the second a s c e n d i nsge n e r a t i o n si n. c l u d i n gb o t hp a r e n t ' ss i b l i n g s termsand parent'sparentsterms. Specifically.Elrnendorf def-ines thesetwo typesas follows: l-ineal tenninology does not distinguish ParSibor ParParaccordingto the sex of the c o n n e c t i n rge l a t i v et:h u s .a l l F a S i b- M o S i b . all FaPar " MoPar. Bifirrcate collateral t e n l i n o l o g yd o e ss o d i s t i n g u i s thh e s es e t so f r e l a t i v e s :t h u s F a S i b * M o S i b . F a P a r * MoPar(1961:366). Elrnendorfgoeson to indicate,much as was discussed above.that within the Salish languagefamily a bipartite division exists between lineal and bifurcate collateral s v s t e r n sa. n d t h a t t h i s d i v i s i o n c o r r e s p o n dtso a d i v i s i o n "between Salish languagesof the Bella Coola. Coast S a l i s h .a n d O r e g o nd i v i s i o n so n t h e o n e h a n d a n d o f t h e I n l e r i o rd i v i s i o no n t h e o t h e r " ( 1 9 6l : 3 6 6 ) . r 0 E l m e n d o r f a l s oi n d i c a t e tsh a tt h i s d i v i s i o nc o r r e s p o n dt so t h e d i v i s i o n b e t r v e e nt h o s e S a l i s h l a n g u a g e sw h i c h e x i s t w i t h i n t h e Norlhu'estCoastcultureareaand thosewithin the Plateau culture area. Such an areal scale for this distinction is further evidencedby the existenceof the coresponding n o n - S a l i s hg r o u p s .i n c l u d i n g s ) s t e l na m o n s n e i g h b o u r i n g the presenceof a lineal system anlongstthe Wakashan languagesas denronstratedabove. This fairly clear d i s t i n c t i o nt,h e n . i s u s e db y E l m e n d o r fa s a b a s i sf o r t h e " u ' h a t e v e rt y p e o f k i n s h i p t e r m i n o l o g y a s s u m p t i o nt h a t c h a r a c t e r i z e tdh e p r o t o - S a l i s hs p e e c h c o r n m u n i t y ,t h i s o r i g i n a l s y s t e m h a s d e v e l o p e di n t o t w o d i s t i n c t t y p e s a r l r o n gn r o d e r nS a l i s hp e o p l e s (" I 9 6 I : 3 6 5 ) . H e t h e ns e e k s to explore the relationshipbetweenthese contemporary " p r o t o - S a l i s h "w h i c h p r e c e d e dt h e m , d i v i s i o n sa n d t h e particularlyfbcussingon the changeswhich must have occurred. The conceptof a proto-Salishlanguageis itself n t e r e sitn d i s c u s s i o nosf S a l i s hp r e h i s t o r y , o f c o n s i d e r a b li e and attemptsto reconstructsuch a proto-languageand relateit to its contemporaryderivativeshavebeenmadeby s e v e r aal u t h o r s( B o a sa n d H a e b e r l i n1 9 2 7 :S w a d e s h1 9 5 0 ; K i n k a d ea n dT h o r n p s o n1 9 7 4 :a n d K u i p e r sl 9 8 l ) , b u t s u c h d e r ei n a n y d e t a i l . R a t h e r o, f t o p i c sw i l l n o t b e d i s c u s s e h particularinterestis Elmendorfs conclusionthat the protoS a l i s hs y s t e r nv v a sr n o s tl i k e l y b i f u r c a t ec o l l a t e r ailn t y p e . r a t h e rt h a nt h e a l t e r n a t i vpeo s s i b i l i t i etsh a tt h e p r o t o - S a l i s h s)sterrwas linealor of a differenttype entirely(E,lmendorf t 9 6 l) . In order to demonstratethis conclusion,Elmendorf ( 1 9 6l ) e x a m i n e da s e t o f k i n t e r m s , i n c l u d i n gt e r m s f o r grandparents, grandchildren, parent's siblings. and p a r e n t s ' ss i b l i n g sc h i l d r e n .f o r a n u m b e ro f I n t e r i o ra n d CoastalSalishlanguages.The equivalentdata for the five languages understudy hereare summarizedin Table2, and are represented in symbolic form. for easeof cornparison, in Table 3. Through a detailedcomparisonof such data. Elmendorfwas able to concludethat "coastalsystemshave changedmost, and in a particulardirection.while interior systemshave remainedrelativelyconservativeand hence approximate more closely to an original hypothetical proto-Salish system" ( l96l : 368). E,lmendorf first examinesgrandparentand grandchildterms.both in terms of systemic f'eaturesand linguistic features. In first examining the systemic features. coastal groups are generally found to difTerentiatebetween ParPar and ChiChi, while interiorgroupstypically employ four ParPar terms which are also used reciprocallyfor ChiChi terrns ( E , l m e n d o rlf9 6 l : 3 6 8 - 3 6 9 ) . A n e x c e p t i o nt o t h i s r u l e highlighted by Elmendorf is the Thompson language. which follows the coastalsystemdespitebeing an Interior Salishlanguage.This is interestingas Thompsonbelongs to the Northerndivision of Interior Salish.while the other Interior languages analysed by Elmendorf, narnely SouthernOkanagon,Spokane.and Wenatchee-Columbia, a l l b e l o n gt o t h e S o u t h e r nd i v i s i o no f I n t e r i o rS a l i s h .T h i s apparent split between Norlhern and Southern Interior Salish is further supportedwhen consideringthe data outlinedin Table 2. Spokaneclearlyrepresents the lnterior form describedby Elmendorf.whereasthe remainingfour languages,including the Northern Interior languageof Shuswap, follow the coastal pattern. Thus. the data presented in this paper not only further highlight Elmendorfs split between the Northern and Southern divisions of Interior Salish, but they further demonstrate the close correspondencebetween the coastal Salish pattern and the neighbouring Southern Wakashan languages. In examining the linguistic aspectsof the languages under study. Elmendorf finds that a higher number of cognateterms exist amongst interior groups (parlicularly SouthemInterioras discussedabove)than amongstcoastal groups,and that all cognatesthat exist betweencoastaland interior groups are found within the Spokane language ( l 9 6 l : 3 7 0 - 3 7 1 ) . T h i s , a c c o r d i n gt o E h n e n d o r fp. r o v i d e s evidencethat the coastalsystemsderived from a systern resemblingthat of the interior systems. Though it is difficult to supportsuchconclusionswith the small dataset presentedhere, it is nonethelesspossibleto demonstrate somedegreeof cognaterelationshipbetweenthe languages represented. In particular. the use of the term sileT (ParPar)in Saanich.sleT (ParFa) in Shuswap.and sileT (MoFa) in Spokane.demonstrates a degreeof relationship among these three languages(see Table 2). A flrrher relationshipis indicatedbetweenShuswapand Spokane SPRING2OO1 37 b! f-l r g = .a) 'c) c) r r> O r O r J r'0) o c) a tr L r r r U) ,l 3 ''1J X 6 = r.() .() r'c) r N E o X r b! -o o r I O .o X a) E ,). a L E! 6 r a p E a* c) t! r r. O t 6 r'4i a r a.) c) E J I b! r () a. ! b! r-l cg r a o U (, a o Y3 t J .O L r z ! + o! l-l Ir. U r 0) U r fi O > ai 0) r X 'o -C, - o I G -: J q,) I /) r; a 7 € I o! r r G r I! v t- :o L O € = 0) a) O d lL lL z. -i a L L ! q) ! O CJ t! tL a a () () t t! cd - L Q o L c) ! a ( ) L 0,) L 6 t! .2 a a a o of the ParPar,ParSib,Sibchi, and ChiChi termsfrom the five languages Table 3. Sirnplifiedsyrnbolicrepresentation under mrsaal r e a v e r a g e d a c r o s s t h e s e g e n d e r d i s t i nTcht i so n s . s t u d y .F o r e a s e o f c o m p a r i s o n . g e n d e r o f e g o i s i g n o r e d . a n d gteenr e relevantfor the Sibchi and ChiChi termsfor Spokane(seeTable2). is panicularlyS o u t h e r nW a k a s h a n Ahousaht Ditidaht Coast Salish Saanich Interior Salish Shuswap Spokane FaFa ParFa MoFa ParPar ParPar ParPar FaMo ParMo MoMo ParSib ParSib FaBr FaBr MoBr MoBr ParSib FaSi ParSi MoSi BrSo SibSo SibSo SibSo SiSo sibchi BrDa SibDa SibDa SibDa SiDa SoChi chichi chichi chichi chichi DaChi r.viththe IermsrpeTe (ParFa) ands-xdpe7(FaFa),and kyeTe ( P a r M o )a r r di h ' c / ( M o M o ) r e s p e c t i v e l yU . nsurprisingly. no cognates are evidenced between the Southern though a high degree Wakashanand the Salishlanguages. of cognaterelationshipis apparentbetweenthe Ahousaht t ata. a n dD i t i d a h d of ParSiband SibChiterms, Turningto a consideration F . l n r e n d o(r1f 9 6I ) m a k e ss i m i l a rc o n c l u s i o n st h. o u g ht h e s e tenlrs are nrore problematicdue to higher variability. In ternrsof ParSibterms, for example.Elmendorf identifies five systemsamongstthe coastalgroups.while the interior g r o u p s a r e c o n s i s t e n t l yb i f u r c a t ec o l l a t e r a l( 1 9 6 1 : 3 7 2 , ith 373). The SibChi terms are more problematicw variabilityoccurringin both the coastaland interior data, arguesthat the lack of variabilityin interior but Elrrrendorf ParSibterrns once again suppol'tsthe argutnentthat the proto-Salishpatternresembledthat of the interior groups. Once again it is difllcult to rnakesuch conclusionsbased on the limited data presentedhere. but it is nevertheless interestingto considerthis data. ConsideringTable 3. it is apparent that Spokane closely follows the bifurcate collateralarrangementfbr ParSiband SibChi terms,while Shuswap appears to follow a somewhat intermediate pattern. The Saanich usage of two terms. ParSib and Sibchi. falls into one of the most widespread of Elmendorfs five coastalforms. Perhapsnot surprisingly, the SouthernWakashanlanguagesemploy a systemwhich was not evidencedin any ofthe coastalSalishanlanguages Finally. considering the examined by Elmendorf. linguisticaspectsof ParSiband SibChi terms, Elmendorf indicatesthat innovationshaveoccurredwithin the interior with Spokanebeing the most conservativeand languages, the proto-Salishsystem.and thus mostcloselyrepresenting to an even greater degree within the coastal languages ( 1 9 6 1 : 3 7 4 - 3 7 6 )A. g a i n ,w e s e es o m er e l a t i o n s h ibpe t w e e n Shuswapand Spokaneas follows: ,li.sel(MoBr) and .s.si7 SPRING2OO1 39 ( M o B r ) . r i k v ' e 7( P a r S i ) a n d t e t i k e T( W m F a S i / W m B r D a ) . qu'scl (MnSibSo) and ,s-qr',s?el?r 1WmSiSo;, and stunc ( W n r S i b S o / S i b D a )n d r r i r . i( M n S i b C h i ) . I n a d d i t i o n t, h e Saanichterm s/i,("4,?(Sibchi) appearsto be cognatewith the Shusrvapterm tikv'e7 (ParSi) and the Spokaneterm tatikeT(WnFaSi/WrnBrDa).A high degreeof relatedness is also once again evidenced between Ahousaht and D i t i d a h t . E l m e n d o r f c o n c l u d e s .t h e n . t h a t t h e m o s t innovativechangehas occurredamongstthe coastalSalish tcnrinologies.and the contemporarylinealpatternof these l a n q u a s e sh a s d e v e l o p e dt h r o u g h m u l t i p l e i n d e p e n d e n t innovationstiorr an original bifurcate collateral system ( 1 9 6l : 3 7 9 ) . T h u s . t h e v i e w t h a t t h e c o m n r o n l i n e a l terrninologyof only distantlyrelatedgroups,suchas Coast Salish and Wakashan.are a holdover frotn a distant conrron relative lnust be abandoned. Elmendorf's hypothesis^ as outlinedhereand describedin more detail in h i s p a p e r( 1 9 6l ) . i s i n t r i g u i n g a. n d i s n o t c o n t r a d i c t ebdy the data presentedin this paper. This is reflected by "offers convincing Thornpson.who statesthat Elmendorf evidencethat the SouthernInterior systemsare closer to the original than are more coastalsystems"(1979: 731). l l o w e v e r .i t i s a l s on o t p o s s i b l et o a r g u et h a tt h e s m a l ld a t a set presented here strongly supports Elmendorfs conclusions.and it would be of particular interest to expandthis data set to include a far larger^and thus far sampleof the Salishlanguages and of more representative. t h e i rn o n - S a l i snhe i g h b o u r s . It is interestingto relate these discussionsto wider topics of Salish prehistory.and of particularinterestand relevanceis the topic of the Urheimator proto-homeland of the proto-Salishlanguage.which gave rise to the to interior-coastal split describedabove. This is addressed one degree or another by' several authors. including "the original L , l r n e n d oh r li'm s e l fw h o a r s u e st h a t Interior S a l i s h l s p e e c hc o r n r n u n i t yd i v e r g e d l i n g u i s t i c a l l yf i o m o t h e r S a l i s hc o r r r n u n i t i e si r r a h a b i t a tw h i c h l a y i n t h e extrenrenofihwesternporlion of the intermontanePlateau, c l o s e l ya' d j a c e ntto t h e B r i t i s hC o l u m b i ac o a s t "( 1 9 6 5 : 7 6 ) . This argurnenttbr an interior sourcefor the Salishpeople is largell' supporled by Drucker. who cites a lack of evidencefbr a rvidespreaddistributionof Salish people alongthe coast.and an existenceofevidencethat suggests a recent erxergenceof coastal Salish fiom the Interior (1965: 107). T'his view has been largelyabandoned. lrowever.in favour of a coastalorigin. This is arguedby "it seernslikely that the ProtoThorrpsonwho statesthat s p e a k e ros r i g i n a l l ys e t t l e da l o n gt h e s h o r e so f t h e Salishan protectedinland salt waterways.around the mouth of the "somewhat FraserRiver or nearby" (1979: 693). and that group left the centralbody and crossed latera considerable t h e r n o u n t a i n si n t o t h e i n t e r i o r p l a t e a uc o u n t r y " ( 1 9 7 9 : 695: cf-. Thornpson and Kinkade 1990). Suttles and interrnediatepossibility. Elmendorfprovide a sotrre'uvhat "original divergenceof arsuing lbr the occurrenceof the 40 protobranchlanguagesin river valleys along the western slopes of the Cascade Mountains, perhaps from the southernend of Puget Sound north to the Fraser River, with the earliestoffshootjust eastofthe Cascades"(1963: 45). Suttles readdressesthis problem in another publication,arguing that as the greatestinternaldiversity existswithin the coastalSalishlanguages,it is most likely that the proto-Salishlanguagewas locatedon the coast. ratherthan in the interior(l98la:259-260\. This debate regardingthe location of a proto-salish homeland is intriguing when viewed in the context of 'Ihe recentarchaeologicalwork. possibilityof a coastal route for the migrationof the earliestpeoplesinto North America was suggested as early as 1979(Fladmark1979). In recent years this possibility has gained considerable support as evidence has been mounted against the previously dominant ice-free corridor model (see Hall 1998). This has led to an increasedinterestin issuesof coastalcolonization,and as a resultconsiderable work has recentlyfocussedon issuesof sea level changeand early humanoccupationof the NorlhwestCoast(Josenhans el a/. 1995, 1997, Fed.ieet al. 1996a, 1996b: Wisner 1998). Clearly. such archaeologicaldevelopmentsmay have s i g n i f i c a n t c o n s e q u e n c efso r l i n g u i s t i c d i s c u s s i o n so f prehistory,and vice versa. Notes ' Specifically.the study coversan areawhich corresponds to the territorytraditionallyoccupiedby the InteriorSalish. the Central Coast Salish. and the Southern Wakashan Peoples. Thus. much of Southern BC and the correspondingNorthernarea of the statesof Washington. ldaho.and Montanais represented. 2 The cited sourcestypically refer to this languageas "Nitinaht", but the preferredform "Ditidaht" will be used here. t All but one of the languagesrepresentedmake such a distinctionbetweena male and femaleego in at leastsome of the termsrepresented.The exceptionis Saanich.which to makeno suchdistinction. "?PPears For a map outlining the geographiclocationsof the languages describedin the text. seeSuttles( I 987). ' E l m e n d o r(f 1 9 6 5 )a l s o i n c l u d e sa f i f t h d i a l e c t C , hewelah. within this languagegroup. t' This is somewhatcomplicated,however.by the use of "c" in someShuswapwords.suchas ki ?ce("mother").and t h u si t i s p o s s i b l et h a t K u i p e r s( 1 9 7 5 )i s u s i n gt h e " t s " a n d the "c" to representslightlydifferentsounds. ' For the purposes of this paper, the following abbreviationsare used: Fa - father, Mo : mother. Br : brother.Si - sister,So - son, Da - daughter.Par - parent. S i b- s i b l i n g C . h i - c h i l d .M n - r n a n .W m : w o m a n . n B o a s a n d H a e b e r l i n ' s( 1 9 2 7 ) L k u n g e n l a n g u a g ei s equivalentto the Northern Straits languagedescribedby CULTURALREFLECTIONS T h o n r p s o na n d K i n k a d e( 1 9 9 0 ) .o f w h i c h S a a n i c hi s o n e dialect. '' Parlicularl_vif one considersthe variation to Kuipers' ( I 97-5) datadescribedby lgnace( | 998) as outlinedabove. "'As E l r n e n d o r(f1 9 6l ) r e r n a r k si n a f o o t n o t e( n u m b e r7 . p a g e3 6 6 ) . t h i s f b u r p a r t d i v i s i o no f t h e S a l i s hl a n g u a g e to that plesentedby Swadesh( 1950). tanrily'corresponds References Cited A c k e r n t a nL. i l l i a n A . 1 9 9 8" K i n s h i p .F a m i l y .a n dG e n d e rR o l e s . " I n D e w a r d [:. Walker.Jr.. ed. Handbookof North American I n d i a n sV" o l u m e l 2 : P l a t e a u W . ashington: S r n i t h s o n i al n s t i t u t i o n .P p .- 5l 5 - 5 2 4 . A r i n r a .F . u g e naen d J o h nD e r . v h i r s t 1 9 9 0" N o o t k a n so f V a n c o u v e Irs l a n d . " I n W a y n e Suttles.ed. Handbookof Norlh ArnericanIndians. Volume 7: NorthwestCoast. Washington: . p .3 9 1 - 4I I . S r n i t h s o n i aInn s t i t u t i o n P Boas"Franzand ljerman Haeberlin l 9 2 7 " S o u n dS h i f t si n S a l i s h a nD i a l e c t s . "I n t e r n a t i o n a l s ( 2 - 4 ) :l 1 7 - 1 3 6 . J o u r r r aol f A r n e r i c a nL i n g u i s t i c 4 C a r ' l s o nB. a r r yF . a n d P a u l i n eF l e t t l 9 8 9 " S p o k a n eD i c t i o n a r y . "U n i v e r s i t yo f M o n t a n a O c c a s i o n aPl a p e r si n L i n g u i s t i c (sU M O P L ) N o . 6 . D o n a l d .l , e l a n dH . l 9 9 7 " D e s c e nat n dO t h e rU n i t sB a s e do n K i n s h i p , A l l i a n c eS v s t e n r sa.n d K i n s h i pT e n n i n o l o g i e s . " UnpublishedAnthropology3004 lecturenotes, U n i v e r s i t lo' f V i c t o r i a .S p r i n gS e s s i o n1, 9 9 7 . D r i r c k e rP . hilip l g 6 5 C u l t u r e s o f t h e N o r t h P a c i f i c C o aSsct r. a n t o n : Company. C h a n d l eP r ublishing I - - l m e n d o rW f . i l l i a n rW . 1 9 6I " S ) ' s t e mC h a n g ei n S a l i s hK i n s h i p Journalof Terminologies."Southwestern A n t h r o p o l o g y1 7 :3 6 5 - 3 8 2 . c e l a t i o n isn t h e l g 6 5 " L i n g u i s t i ca n dG e o g r a p h i R Journalof NorlhernPlateauArea." Southwestern Anthropology2l: 63-18. Fedje.D. W.. A. P. Mackie.J. B. McSporran.and B. Wilson 1 9 9 6 a" E a r l y P e r i o dA r c h a e o l o g iyn G w a i i H a a n a s : R e s u l t so f t h e 1 9 9 3F i e l dP r o g r a m . "l n R o y Carlsonand L. Dalla Bona.eds.Early Human i n B r i t i s hC o l u m b i a .V a n c o u v e rU; B C Occupation P r e s s .P p . 1 3 3 - l - 5 0 . Fed.ie.D.W..J.B.McSporran.andAndrewR.Mason 1 9 9 6 b" E a r l y H o l o c e n eA r c h a e o l o gay n d P a l e o e c o l o g y a t t h e A r r o w C r e e kS i t e si n G w a i i H a a n a s . "A r c t i c A n t h r o p o l o g3 yi( l): I 16-142. F l a d r n a r kK. . R . l 9 7 9 " R o u t e sA : l t e r n a t eM i g r a t i o nC o r r i d o r sf o r E a r l y M a n i n N o r l h A m e r i c a . "A n r e r i c a nA n t i q u i t l .1.1( l): ,5-s-69. G o o d y .J a c k l 9 7 l " T h e A n a l y s i so f K i n T e r r n s . "I n J a c kG o o d y (ed.) Kinship:SelectedReadings.Harmondsworth: PenguinBooks Ltd. Pp. 299-306. H a l l .D . A . l 9 9 8 " C o a s t a l - E n t rM y o d e l G a i n sS u p p o r a t slce-Free CorridorTheory Fades." MammothTrumpet l3(3): 5-10. Hanis. Marvin 1993Culture,People.Nature:An Introductionto G e n e r aA l n t h r o p o l o g yS . i x t h E d i t i o n .N e w Y o r k : H a r p e r C o l l i nCs o l l e g eP u b l i s h e r s . Hess.Thom n . d . a " S a a n i cK h i n s h i pT e r m i n o l o g y . "U n p u b l i s h e d Data. n . d . b " A h o u s a hKt i n s h i p . "U n p u b l i s h e D d ata. n . d . c" N i t i n a h tK i n s h i p . " U n p u b l i s h e D d ata. Howard.MichaelC. 1993ContemporaryCulturalAnthropology. Fourth E d i t i o n .N e w Y o r k : H a r p e r C o l l i nCs o l l e g e Publishers. l g n a c eM , a r i a n n eB o e l s c h e r l 9 9 8 " S h u s w a p . "I n D e w a r dE , .W a l k e r .J r . .e d . H a n d b o o ko f N o r t h A m e r i c a nI n d i a n sV. o l u m e 1 2 : P l a t e a u .W a s h i n g t o nS: m i t h s o n i aInn s t i t u t i o n P . p. 203-219. J a c o b s e nW, i l l i a m H . , J r . l979"Wakashan C o m p a r a t i vS e t u d i e s . "I n L y l e C a m p b e lal n d M a r i a n n eM i t h u n ,e d s .T h e Languagesof Native America;Historicaland C o r n p a r a t i vAes s e s s m e n tA. u s t i n :U n i v e r s i t yo f T e x a sP r e s s .P p . 7 6 6 - 7 9 1 . J o s e n h a n s , H e i n e r W . . D aW r y. F l edje.KimW.Conway. a n dJ . V a u g h nB a r r i e 1 9 9 5" P o s tG l a c i a lS e aL e v e l so n t h e W e s t e r n Canadian C o n t i n e n t aSl h e l f :E v i d e n c ef b r R a p i d Change,ExtensiveSubaerialExposure.and Early H u m a nH a b i t a t i o n . "M a r i n eG e o l o g y1 2 5 : 7 3 - 9 4 . J o s e n h a nH s ,e i n e r .D a r y l F e d j e .R e i n h a r dP i e n i t za. n dJ o h n Southon 1997"Early Humansand RapidlyChangingHolocene SeaLevelsin the QueenCharlottelslands- Hecate . a n a d a . "S c i e n c e S t r a i t .B r i t i s hC o l u m b i aC 277: 7l-74. K e e s i n gR . o g e rM . 1975Kin Groupsand SocialStructure.Fort Worth: H a r c o u rB t r a c eJ o v a n o v i c C h o l l e g eP u b l i s h e r s . K i n k a d eM , . D a l e .a n d L a u r e n c eC . T h o m p s o n 1 9 7 4 " P r o t o - S a l i s h * rI .n"t e r n a t i o nJaol u r n aol f A m e r i c a nL i n g u i s t i c s4 0 ( l ) : 2 2 - 2 8 . KinkadeM , . D a l e .W i l l i a m W . E h n e n d o r fB. r u c eR i g s b y . a n d H a r u oA o k i l 9 9 8 " L a n g u a g e s . I"n D e w a r dE . W a l k e r ,J r . ,e d . H a n d b o o ko f N o r t h A m e r i c a nI n d i a n sV . o l u m el 2 : P l a t e a uW . a s h i n g t o nS: m i t h s o n i aInn s t i t u t i o n P . p. 49-12. SPRING 2OO1 41 K u i p e r sA " . H. 1 9 7 5A C l a s s i f i e dE n g l i s h - S h u s w aWpo r d - L i s t .P d R P r e s sP u b l i c a t i o nosn S a l i s hL a n g u a g e3s. P e t e r DeRiddeP r ress. l 9 8 l " O n R e c o n s t r u c t i nt hge P r o t o - S a l i sSho u n d S1,'s1enr." I nternationa I .lournalof Arnerican L i n e u i s t i c4s 7 ( 4 ) :3 2 i - 3 i , 5 . M a l o u f .C a r l i n gI . l 9 9 8 " F l a t h e a da n d P e n dd ' O r e i l l e . " I n D e w a r dE . W a l k e r .J r . .e d . H a n d b o o ko f N o r t h A m e r i c a n I n d i a n sV. o l u r n el 2 ; P l a t e a u .W a s h i n g t o n : S r n i t h s o n i aInn s t i t u t i o n .P p .2 9 7- 3 1 2 . P e o p l e sJ.a m e sa n dC a r r i c kB a i l e y 1 9 9 ; tl l u m a n i t y :A n I n t r o d u c t i otno C u l t u r a l A n t h r o p o l o g yT . h i r d H d i t i o n .S t . P a u l :W e s t P u b l i s h i nC g o r r r p a n. l R o s s . . l o hA n larr l 9 9 8 " S p o k a n e . "l n D e w a r dE . W a l k e r .J r . .e d . H a n d b o o ko f N o r t h A m e r i c a nI n d i a n sV . o l u r n el 2 : P l a t e a uW . a s h i n g t o nS: r n i t h s o n i al n s t i t u t i o n .P p . 2 7t - 2 8 2 . S p i e r .L e s l i e l9l-5 "The Distributionof Kinship Sy'stems in North A r n e r i c a . "U n i v e r s i t yo f W a s h i n g t o n Publications i n A n t h r o p o l o g yl ( 2 ) : 6 9 - 8 8 . S u t t l e sW . ayne I 9 8 7C o a s tS a l i s hE s s a y s .V a n c o u v e rT: a l o n b o o k s . 1 9 8 7 a" ' I ' h eR e c e n E t m e r g e n coef t h e C o a s tS a l i s hB t h e F u n c t i o no f a n A n t h r o n o l o s i c aMl v t h . " I n 42 WayneSuttles.ed. CoastSalishEssays. Vancouver:Talonbooks.Pp. 256-264. l 9 9 0 " C e n t r aC l o a s tS a l i s h . " I n W a y n eS u t t l e se. d . Handbookof North AmericanIndians.Volume 7: NorthwestCoast. Washington:Srnithsonian InstitutionP . p .4 5 3 - 4 7 5 . S u t t l e sW . a y n ea n d W i l l i a r nW . E l m e n d o r f 1 9 6 3" L i n g u i s t i cE v i d e n c ef o r S a l i s hP r e h i s t o r y . I"n Viola E. Garfreldand WallaceL. Chafe.eds. Symposiumon Languageand Culture:Proceedings o f t h e 1 9 6 2A n n u a lS p r i n gM e e t i n go f t h e AmericanEthnologicalSociety. Seattle:University o l W a s h i n g t o nP . p .4 l - 5 2 . Swadesh.Morris I 9 5 0" S a l i s hI n t e r n aR l e l a t i o n s h i p s .I"n t e r n a t i o n a l J o u r n aol f A m e r i c a nL i n g u i s t i c sl 6 ( 4 ) : l 5 l - 1 6 7 . Thompson.LaurenceC. 1 9 7 9" S a l i s h a na n dt h e N o r t h w e s t . "I n L y l e C a m p b e l l a n d M a r i a n n eM i t h u n ,e d s .T h e L a n g u a g eosf Native America:Historicaland Contparative Assessment.Austin: Universityof TexasPress. Pp.692-765. Thompson,LaurenceC. and M. Dale Kinkade l 9 9 0 " L a n g u a g e s . I"n W a y n eS u t t l e se, d . H a n d b o o ko f North AmericanIndians.Volume 7: Northwest C o a s t .W a s h i n g t o nS: m i t h s o n i a Inn s t i t u t i o n P . p. 3 0 - 5l . Wisner,George 1 9 9 8" L i v i n g o n t h e R i m . " M a m m o t hT r u m p e tl 3 ( 2 ) : 7-lt. CULTURALREFLECTIONS