Measuring the Development of Kinship Terminologies: Scalogram and Transformational Accounts of Crow‐type Systems¹

Comment on German Dziebel: Crow-Omaha and the Future of Kin Term Research

“…The Omaha did not equate cross cousins with D and S (Fletcher andLa Flesche 1905-1906:315-317). None of the types in Whiteley's chapter (2012:86-88) and some types in Wheeler and colleagues' chapter (2012:126) do not equate cross cousins with D and S. Anecdotally, early normative accounts of Choctaw and Cherokee terminology and most of Buchler's (1964) normative systems do not equate matrilateral cross cousins with D and S. In the Tlingits' version of Crow, matrilateral cross-cousins were also not equated with D and S (Emmons 1991:30). In this integrated model considering Crow-Omaha social organization and marital alliances, MBD/S ≠ D/S and FZD/S ≠ D/S.…”