On Ethnic Unit Classification [and Comments and Reply]

Author(s): Raoul Naroll, Ronald M. Berndt, Frank D. Bessac, Eliot D. Chapple, Gertrude E.
Dole, Harold E. Driver, Paul Ducey, Melvin Ember, Helmuth Fuchs, Hans Hoffmann,
Mervyn Jaspan, David Landy, Edmund Leach, Otto Von Mering, Simon D. Messing, Frank
W. Moore, Ramkrishna Mukherjee, George P. Murdock, Artur Hehl Neiva, Gideon, Andree
F. Sjoberg, Andre F. Sjoberg, Leigh M. Triandis, C. F. Voegelin, Linvill Watson, John W.
M. Whiting...
Source: Current Anthropology, Vol. 5, No. 4 (Oct., 1964), pp. 283-312
Published by: The University of Chicago Press on behalf of Wenner-Gren Foundation for
Anthropological Research
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2740256
Accessed: 04-08-2017 13:39 UTC

REFERENCES
Linked references are available on JSTOR for this article:
http://www.jstor.org/stable/2740256?seq=1&cid=pdf-reference#references_tab_contents
You may need to log in to JSTOR to access the linked references.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
http://about.jstor.org/terms

Wenner-Gren Foundation for Anthropological Research, The University of Chicago

Press are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Current
Anthropology

This content downloaded from 62.204.192.85 on Fri, 04 Aug 2017 13:39:37 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 On Ethnic Unit Classification1
by Raoul Naroll

THIS PAPER is a discussion of the problem of defining of prime importance. As Ralph Gerard, a biologist
the "tribe" or "society," conceived of as the basic who has worked seriously with cultural problems, asked
culture-bearing unit-that group of people whose in a seminar I attended: "Exactly where is the skin of a
shared, learned way of life constitutes a whole culture?"
"culture" rather than a mere "subculture" on one hand
or a culture area or culture cluster on the other. I UNIT DEFINITION IN THE LITERATURE
propose a general concept of such a unit, whose appli- Considerable attention to the problem of unit d
cation to varying situations results in four types of has been given by English-speaking anthropologists.
culture-bearing units. Brief surveys of opinions among them have been
My interest in this problem first arose in connection published by Schapera (1953), Berndt (1959), and
with sampling design for cross-cultural surveys. In suchLeVine (1961). In reviewing this body of thought, it is
research, two important problems present themselves. important to distinguish opinions about the nature of
First, probability sampling theory requires that each the basic culture-bearing unit from opinions about the
sampling unit in the universe sampled have a mathe- proper unit to be used in comparative studies. The term
matically definable chance of being selected. Obviously,
"tribe" has often been used to mean a non-literate
the first step in meeting this requirement must be to culture-bearing unit (Berndt 1959:81); but this usage is
define the units being considered. For cross-cultural by no means universal. For example, Evans-Pritchard
surveys this task heretofore had never been rigorously (1940:278-79) uses c"tribe"' to designate a political
accomplished. Secondly, the validity of results of cross- unit within the Nuer people; but it is the Nuer as a
cultural surveys has been questioned in discussions with whole of whom he regularly speaks in his descriptions
anthropologists on the ground that the units were not of Nuer culture.
comparable. One man asked me at dinner table, with Reichard (1938:413f.) obviously has the basic
a note of disdain in his voice, "How can you compare culture-bearing unit in mind in her discussion of the
a little tribe like the Yahgan with a complex people primitive tribe as a unit. "By a tribe," she says, "we
like the English?" (See further discussion in Whiting usually mean an economically independent group of
1954:527-28). people speaking the same language and uniting to
Obviously, however, interest in this problem is not defend themselves against outsiders." But she notes that
confined to those concerned with comparative method some 'etribes," like the Toda, are not economically
but is shared by all students of culture, since the nature independent, while other "tribes," like the Dobuans,
of the culture-bearing unit is itself a scientific question act only rarely as a unit. Further, she adds, a tribe is
a closed society, with laws and morals applying only
RAOUL NAROLL is Associate Professor of Anthropology at to its members. Radcliffe-Brown (1 940a:xii-xiii)
Northwestern University. In the summer, he serves at Los speaks of Australian aborigines as "divided into some
Angeles with the Institute for Cross-Cultural Studies. Born in hundreds of separate tribes, each with its own language,
1920 in Toronto, Canada, he was educated at the University
of California, Los Angeles (A.B., 1950; Ph.D., 1953). He has
done field work in Germany and in the Austrian Tyrol, 1 Work on this paper began in 1954 at the Center for
Currently he is engaged in cross-cultural research on two Advanced Study in the Behavioral Sciences, where the writer spent
major problems, culture stress and deterrence. He has been much time in discussion of the problem in a work group with
working out methodological problems of cross-cultural studies Allan Holmberg, and where James Bosch served as a research
for the last ten years. This paper is directed at one of the assistant, gathering relevant data. Sol Tax repeatedly urged the
main problems encountered in intersocietal comparisons. It was importance of the problem upon the writer and repeatedly called
begun in 1954, and has been discussed with many anthro- upon him to prepare a manuscri-pt. But although a draft embodying
pologists since then. substantially the present scheme was written in 1956, not until
The present article, submitted to CURRENT ANTHROPOLOGY 3 XII recently has the writer had time to put the material in final form.
62, was sent for CA* treatment to 64 scholars of whom the For this opportunity he is indebted to Grant M-382 1, National
following responded with written comments: Ronald M. Berndt, Institutes of Mental Health, U.S. Public Health Service; Grant
Frank B. Bessac, Eliot D. Chapple, Gertrude E. Dole, Harold NSF G-13141, National Science Foundation; and a contract under
E. Driver, Paul R. Ducey, Melvin Ember, Helmuth Fuchs, Hans Project Michelson, U.S. Naval Ordnance Test Station, China Lake,
Hoffmann, Mervyn Jaspan, David Landy, Edmund Leach, Otto California-all three subventions being in support of aspects of the
von Mering, Simon D. Messing, Frank W. Moore, Ramkrishna larger War, Stress and Culture project of which this unit definition
Mukherjee, George P. Murdock, Artur Hehl Neiva, Gideon classification forms a part. Colleagues who read the manuscript
and Andree Sjoberg, Leigh M. Triandis, Carl F. Voegelin, and offered valuable comments include Paul J. Bohannan, Donald
Linvill Watson, and John W. M. Whiting. The comments T. Campbell, Robert A. LeVine, Frada Naroll, Herbert Lewis
written for publication are printed in full after the author's and-especially helpful-Francis L. K. Hsu. I alone am responsible
text and are followed by a reply from the author. for errors and shortcomings.

Vol. 5 * No. 4 * October 1964 283

This content downloaded from 62.204.192.85 on Fri, 04 Aug 2017 13:39:37 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 organization, customs, and beliefs." To Fortes (1940: Nadel (1951:187) on the other hand recommends the
239) the term "tribe" likewise denotes a basic culture- "political group," that is
bearing unit, a "well-defined political or cultural entity
the aggregate of human beings who coordinate their
differentiated from like units." Fortes calls attention effort for the employment of force against others and for
to the difficulty of using such a concept in discussing the elimination of force between them, and who usually
the Tallensi or their neighbors: count as their principal estate the possession and utilization
of territory.
no "tribe" of this region can be circumscribed by a precise
boundary-territorial, linguistic, cultural or political. Each Schapera (1956:8-10) likewise favors the political
merges with its neighbors in all these respects. In the unit, however small, as the basic unit of comparison.
transition zones between two "tribes" well communities
For the universe of study, within which comparisons
equally linked by residential contiguity and by structural
ties to both.
are to be made, he, like Radcliffe-Brown and Leach
(1954) favors the region. As Schapera (1953:359-60)
The concept of society as that of a basic culture- explicitly pointed out, the results of these regional
bearing unit is clearly expressed by Fortes and Evans- comparisons ultimately were themselves to be com-
Pritchard (1940:23): pared; but this presumably would be the work of
The social structure of a people stretches beyond their future generations.
political systems, so defined, for there are always social Driver's regional study (1956:15), comprising the
relations of one kind or another between peoples of entire North American continent,
different autonomous political groups. Clans, age-sets, ritual
divided extensive territorial groups into the minimum
associations, relations of affinity and of trade, and social
number of units necessary to display all the variation
relations of other kinds unite people of different political
present in the data on the six topics under consideration ...
units. Common language or closely related languages,
similar customs and beliefs, and so on, also unite them. Uniformity in trait inventory of two neighboring groups
Hence a strong feeling of community may exist between who spoke different languages was not regarded as sufficient
groups which do not acknowledge a single ruler or unite reason to lump them.
for specific political purposes. Community of language and Thus we have at least six criteria proposed for
culture, as we have indicated, does not necessarily give rise
defining whole societies, or other units of comparison:
to political unity, any more than linguistic and cultural
dissimilarity prevents political unity. (1) Distribution of particular traits being studied.
(2) Territorial contiguity.
These views may be compared with some others.
(3) Political organization.
Murdock (1953:478-79) proposes (4) Language.
to define a culture as including all local cultural variants (5) Ecological adjustment.
exhibited by communities within a particular geographical (6) Local community structure.
area which speak mutually intelligible languages and have
Before discussing the theory of ethnic unit definition
essentially similar forms of economic adjustment.
or proposing my taxonomic scheme, let me review the
Ember (1963) defines his sampling unit as "a con- theoretical and practical difficulties connected with
tinuously distributed population whose members speak these six criteria from various points of view.
a common language or lingua franca which is different Distribution of particular traits being studied.-
from the dominant languages of any neighboring Where the societies being studied include all those found
societies." within a single geographical area, this is operationally
One common thread runs through the foregoing feasible and methodologically clean. For Driver's North
comments. Reichard, Radcliffe-Brown, Fortes, Evans- American study, it seems to have been successful. But
Pritchard, Murdock, and Ember all conceive of the for comparative studies in which scattered samples are
basic culture-bearing unit as a unit in which a common to be studied, the method is prohibitively expensive
language is spoken. Had the Tallensi differed sharply because it requires the study of all the neighbors of each
from their neighbors in speech, instead of blending society in the sample, and their neighbors, and their
gradually along a linguistic continuum, Fortes would neighbors, until boundaries have been reached for all
not have complained of the difficulty of defining the traits being studied-or, if a linguistic criterion is
"tribal" boundaries in the Tallensi country. On the also used, as by Driver, until a sharp language bound-
other hand, none of these writers thinks that speech ary is reached.
community alone can be relied on to define the basic Territorial contiguity. -This criterion seems impor-
culture-bearing unit, and they do not agree on what tant where neighboring societies have generally similar
else needs to be considered. cultures and speak inter-intelligible dialects but are
Another point of disagreement among English- separated by uninhabited geographical gaps, whether
speaking writers lies in the nature of the unit to be water gaps or wasteland gaps. Such gaps seem to be the
examined in comparative studies. Murdock and Ember crucial boundaries between many Polynesian and
wish to compare whole cultures. Radcliffe-Brown Eskimo groups. On the other hand, water gaps seem
(1940b:4-5) proposes we take "any convenient less important to peoples who share membership in a
locality of a suitable size" and study "the structural single political unit. Also, short gaps of water or waste-
system as it appears in and from that region, i.e., the land obviously are unimportant; the gaps between the
network of relations connecting the inhabitants home islands of Japan or between the Samoan islands
amongst themselves and with the peoples of other of Savaii, Upolu, and Tutuila obviously are inconse-
regions." Whiting (1954:526) likewise recommends the quential. Operationally, large gaps are usually easy to
local comxmunity as the basic unit of comparative study. find out about.

284 CURRENT ANTHROPOLOGY

This content downloaded from 62.204.192.85 on Fri, 04 Aug 2017 13:39:37 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 Political organization.-States-territorial units em- Naroll: ON ETHNIC UNIT CLASSIFICATION

bracing a considerable number of local communities

into a political unit wielding exclusive war-making Yagua to other Peban dialects (Peba, Yameo, Tucuman)
authority-are generally treated by both the people is not at all clear (Steward and Metraux 1948:713,
involved and the ethnologists as distinct cultures. 728-29; Rivet 1911:176-77, 182). Eastern and
Murdock himself so treats neighboring states not dif- Western Timbira probably are mutually unintelligible
fering importantly in ecological adjustment and speak- (what is our definition of intelligibility?) but clearly
are on a linguistic continuum (Snethlage 1930:187-
ing intertelligible (mutually intelligible) dialects, e.g.,
Zulu and Swazi. On the other hand, where no such 199; Nimuendaju 1915; 1946:6). According to Powder-
territorial units exist, and where each local community maker (1933:15, 31), the Lesu dialect was understood
is politically independent, retaining full control over only in four other nearby villages; but there seems
war-making, not only the people involved but also reason to suspect that Lesu is on a linguistic continuum
ethnologists commonly ignore the criterion of political running the length of not only New Ireland but also
organization in defining tribes. Thus to give only a fewNew Britain (Capell 1962:89-94). Hupa seems to be
examples, the following societies aboriginally containedmutually intelligible with neighboring Athapaskan
many independent political organizations (made up, dialects to the south (Leldin, Hleltin) and west (Whil-
in some, of the single nuclear family): Copper Eskimo,kut) (Goddard 1903:7; 1911:92-93). The Flathead
Hopi, Southern Paiute, Samoans, Ainu, Chuckchee, dialect seems to be on a Salish linguistic continuum
Nama Hottentots, Naron Bushmen, Yahgans, Onas. (Swadesh 1950:159) and evidently is readily inter-
Data on political organization membership are usually telligible with Kalispel and Pend d'Oreille (Teit 1930:
easy to find and interpret. 303). Ulithians speak a Central Caroline dialect; but
Language.-Where people are separated either by these dialects are not mutually intelligible and it is an
substantial water or wasteland gaps, or by state open question how intertelligible Ulithi (Mogmog) is
boundaries as above described, it is common for peoplewith the dialect of nearby Sorol or Fais (Damm 1938:
speaking intertelligible dialects to deny membership230-31,
in 297ff., 372ff.; Kramer 1937:390ff.; Cheyne
a common "tribe" and for ethnologists to treat them1852:195;
as Fritz 1911:6-7).
belonging to distinct cultural units. Furthermore, it notNama does not appear to be mutually intelligible
seldom happens that people speaking intertelligible dia-
with Korana, Cape Hottentot or Gricqua but does seem
lects are commonly classified as members of distinct to be readily intelligible with Bergdama, although there
cultural units if they differ markedly and obviouslyarein some differences (Schapera 1930:45, 224; Hoernle
their ecological paterns and occupy distinct and fairly
1925:3-4; Stow 1910:265; Godee-Molsbergen 1916:
large contiguous territories. On the other hand, it is215-233; Barrow 1801:382-83, 389; Beach 1938:
rather uncommon to class a group of people as a single8, 181; Wandres 1927). Lepcha would seem to be non-
"tribe" who speak neither a generally intelligible dia-
intertelligible with its nearest relatives among the non-
lect nor a lingua franca (understood as a second pronominalized Himalayan dialects of the Tibeto-
language by leading men in every local community). Himalayan group of the Tibeto-Burmese family, but
This uncommon classification is probably applied most the evidence on this score is not from informants' state-
frequently to simple foraging peoples like the Anda- ments nor from linguistic experiments but only from
manese and the Yahgans. examining the available word lists (Hodgson 1857;
However, the operational difficulties of applying theKunow 1906; Campbell 1868).
linguistic criterion are formidable, and neither Murdock But even where the linguistic data is clear, the classi-
nor Ember claims to have systematically examined thefication problem often remains formidable. What do
linguistic data of the societies in their sample to see we do about one-way intelligibility, where speakers of
whether in fact they meet the linguistic criteria pro- Dialect A understand speakers of Dialect B but not
posed. If they had done so, they could hardly have vice versa? Operationally, linguistic classification is
avoided discussing the operational problems involved extremely technical and difficult at best; with the
in working with linguistic continuums or in defining materials available in existing ethnographic literature
mutual intelligibility. I have systematically surveyed it is often sheer guess-work. If, as seems to be the case,
the linguistic evidence for the thirty tribes of my first Eastern and Western Timbira are mutually unintelli-
pilot study (Naroll 1956). I, find serious linguistic gible dialects but are connected by over a dozen geo-
classification problems in eleven of the thirty: Yahgan,graphically intermediate dialects, each of which is
Yagua, Ona, Fiji, Lesu, Ramkokamekra Timbira, readily intelligible to its neighbor, where does Eastern
Hupa, Flathead, Ulithi, Nama, and Lepcha. Timbira stop and Western Timbira start? Where is the
Although Yahgan dialects are said to be mutually skin of the culture here? Paul Bohannan in conversation
intelligible, they are also said contradictorily to differhas spoken of linguistic continuums in Africa whose
as much as Scotch and Cockney (Lothrop 1928:120). poles are radically different languages and yet which
Nothing but formal linguistic experiments of the nowhere present a sharp linguistic break. Romance
Voegelin-Biggs type would persuade me that Ayreshirelanguage peasant dialects seem to present a linguistic
rural Scottish and Cockney are at all mutually intelli- continuum including dozens of mutually unintelligible
gible. Eastern Ona (Haush) and Western Ona differ variants and including literary Portuguese, Spanish,
similarly (Bridges 1948:92). It is easy to see that some French and Italian within their range. The German
nineteenth-century Fijian dialects were mutually un- linguistic continuum is the classic example; how do
intelligible but it is not so easy to divide them up into we treat a village, all of whose members claim to
mutually intelligible groupings (Williams 1858:216; speak mutually intelligible variants of German but
Capell 1941:464; Fison 1886). The relationship of who in fact do not? What is our operational definition

Vol. 5 N No. 4 * October 1964 285

This content downloaded from 62.204.192.85 on Fri, 04 Aug 2017 13:39:37 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
of intelligibility and how do we apply it to the of the Supreme Court in Washington, D.C., and vice
available word lists? Do we take an informant's word versa. Two of us (Naroll 1956; Ember 1963) are
for it? Most Viennese claim to understand Tyrolean interested in the size of the largest settlement in a
readily; but this is a myth; they usually cannot. society as a variable for study; such a variable by its
What do we do about bilinguality? trilinguality? very definition requires a society comprising several
Many Luisefio today seem equally at home in Luiseino, local communities. Folk-urban interrelationships
Spanish and English; many Hopi Tewa speak fluent cannot be understood without considering both the city
Hopi and English as well as Tewa. A Western and its hinterland; a Tyrolean village like Feichten in
Papago man may speak fluent English, but his wife not Kaunertal cannot be understood without looking care-
a word of it. Is he a member of American society be- fully at the small town of Prutz, the larger town of
cause he speaks the lingua franca and his wife not be- Landeck, and the cities of Innsbruck and Vienna.
cause she doesn't? And what about the children? In Finally, no one claims that the local community
some Tyrolean villages, children of six or seven neither usually embodies the full society; proponents of that
understand nor speak literary German, but only their concept are talking about the design of comparative
local dialect. Their parents are bilingual and the studies, not about the nature of the culture-bearing unit.
children are expected to become- bilingual.
Ecological adjustment.-I know of no case involving A NEW UNIT: THE "CULTUNIT"
societies who possess aboriginal states where this
criterion has been considered important by the people I now propose as an "ideal type" a concept of the
themselves or by ethnologists. But it is a criterion culture-bearing unit-the cultunit-which yields four
applied to a number of fairly well known "tribes" taxonomic classes. This taxonomy is proposed primarily
which lack aboriginal states, a criterion distinguishing as a conceptual norm to aid anthropologists in their
"tribes" who occupy contiguous adjacent territories thinking,
and rather than an actual unit of study either in
who speak intertelligible dialects. There are the desert- field work or in comparative studies. Field workers
foraging Papago and the riverine-farming Pima; and will often prefer to define their ethnic unit in terms of
similarly the desert-foraging Yavapai and the riverine- local conditions. In concomitant variation research
farming Havasupai; the cattle-herding Nama and the designs (e.g., Redfield 1941), the ethnic unit definition
foraging Bergdama; the reindeer Chukchi and the obviously must be suited to the study in question.
maritime Chukchi; the reindeer Koryak and the Comparativists in cross-cultural surveys often will
maritime Koryak-to give the best known examples. prefer to use the units in Murdock's Outline of World
Theoretically, this criterion is bothersome because it Cultures (1958), in his World Ethnographic Sample
is ignored by everyone in considering the inhabitants (1957), or the units of the Human Relations Area Files.
of large, complex societies where division of labor is However, I appeal to anthropologists in the field to
commonplace and no one follows a "typical" ecologicalidentify the cultunit or cultunits involved in their
adjustment. Operationally, it is formidable to apply; study, by collecting the relevant linguistic, political,
where societies get part of their subsistence from and geographical data. Thus in studying the village of
farming and part from foraging, it often becomes aFeichten in Kaunertal, (Naroll and Naroll, 1962) the
problem to determine the predominant ecological cultural unit of reference for that field study is first of
pattern. Both Murdock (1957)-in his World Ethno- all the commune of Kaunertal and second, the cultural
graphic Sample-and Hobhouse, Wheeler and Gins- district of Oberinntal; but both these units form a small
berg (1930) have classified peoples widely by ecological part of the cultunit which as far as we can tell seems to
criteria, but they have not presented evidence that their consist of the peasants of Tyrol west of the town of
classifications are reliable, or trustworthy (which is Hall-in-Tirol.
by
no means the same thing; see Naroll [1962] on data
DEFINITION OF THE CULTUNIT
quality control). However, if this criterion were
applied only to stateless societies, and even then onlyCultunit.-People who are domestic speakers of a
when its crucial importance is explicitly claimed by common distinct language and who belong either to the
the ethnographer, this would meet the need presented same state or the same contact group.
by the examples given and solve the operational Distinct Language.-All those dialects mutually in-
problem. telligible to speakers of a stated dialect.
Local community structure.-Restricting the unit of State.-A territorially ramified territorial team
study to certain local communities is clearly a good idea whose leaders assert and wield the exclusive right to
in certain kinds of comparative study but clearly declare and conduct warfare.
impossible in certain other kinds. In a cross-cultural Territorially Ramified.-Made up of a mumber of
survey which seeks a random or stratified random component territorial teams. For example, the United
sample (Ember 1963; Naroll 1961b), such a unit defi- States is made up of fifty territorially defined states.
nition is operationally worthless. It is hard enough to Territorial Team.-A group of people whose mem-
get something resembling a complete list of societies, butbership is defined in terms of occupancy of a common
impossible to get anything even vaguely like a complete territory and who have an official with the special
inventory of local communities. Furthermore, to this function of announcing group decisions-a function
operational difficulty must be added a theoretical one. exercised at least once a year.
Where the variable being studied is a political variable, Common. Territory. A geographically contiguous
often no single local community presents the trait as territory within which are found not only the dwellings
such. No one can understand the recent events in of the people of the team but also the lands of their
Oxford, Mississippi, unless he is aware of the behavior usual subsistence activities ashore.

286 CURRENT ANTHROPOLOGY

This content downloaded from 62.204.192.85 on Fri, 04 Aug 2017 13:39:37 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 Contiguous.-Accessible without crossing the land
territory of others. (N.B. Thus water gaps are ignored,
however great.)
Warfare.-Public lethal group combat between ter-
ritorial teams. (N.B. Thus blood feuds between non-
territorially defined kin groups are not considered war-
fare.)
Contact Group.-People who belong to no state but
who speak a common distinct language and who are all
interconnected by successive contact links.
Contact Link.-Two nuclear families constitute a
contact link if their dwellings are not more than two
hundred airline kilometers apart at some time in their
annual cycle.
Domestic Speakers.-People who predominately use
a given dialect for speech within the nuclear family,
that is, among husband and wife and their minor
children.
DISCUSSION OF THE CULTUNIT CONCEPT
This concept of a cultunit as a basic culture-bearing
group makes use of three of the six criteria discussed
earlier. The criteria of language and territorial con-
tiguity are invariably used. The criterion of political
organization is also used wherever there is a sufficient-
ly authoritative political structure transcending the
local community.
Deciding dialect affiliation according to the dialect
predominately used domestically resolves most ques-
tions of bilinguality or trilinguality readily. Occasion-
ally, informants claim to belong to bilingual nuclear
families which use two unintelligible languages with
Ccequal" frequency. Mathematically, this claim seems
implausible; such statements might mean only that the
informant does not know which language is more fre-
quently used in his household, or they might mean that Tarascans, Aymara, Zulu-ruled Thonga.
a lower prestige language is used more frequently.
No precise definition of mutual intelligibility is stated two different kinds of boundries; a linguistic boundary
above. The problem of dialect intelligibility has been
studied in the field by several linguists whose interest in boundary. A cultunit boundary is formed by either of
this problem was stimulated by Carl Voegelin (Voegelin
and Harris 1951; Biggs 1957; Pierce 1954). These
studies seem to suggest that where two dialects have
approximately 90 per cent of their vocabulary cognate,
little trouble is ordinarily experienced when speakers
of one try to communicate with speakers of the other;
apparently the substantial element of redundancy in
language is able to accommodate itself to this much
informational "noise." On the other hand these studies
suggest that where two dialects have as little as 70 per
cent of their vocabulary cognate, speakers of one
commonly have great difficulty communicating effec-
tively with speakers of the other. Two dialects with
more than 70 per cent but less than 90 per cent of
cognates might perhaps be termed "partially intelli-
gible."
While the definitive solution of this problem must be
left to linguists, as a practical working method for
comparative ethnologists today, I propose the follow-
ing: (1) Where comparative word lists including at
least twenty words are available in a consistent phone-
tic notation, consider as "recognizable cognates" only
those words which are reported to share at least one
meaning in common and which also have two-thirds of
their phonemes in common and in the same order.
Vol. 5 N No. 4 - October 1964
This content downloaded from 62.204.192.85 on Fri, 04 Aug 2017 13:39:37 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
Naroll: ON ETHNIC UNIT CLASSIFICATION
(Where word lists exceed two hundred entries, use only
those on the Swadesh glotto-chronology list [Hymes
1960]). If 80 per cent or more of the words examined
constitute "recognizable cognates" consider the two dia-
lects mutually intelligible; otherwise, not. (2) Where
no such comparative word lists are available follow
statements by informants or ethnographers about intel-
ligibility. (Such statements can probably be trusted to
agree with the "recognizable cognate" word-list method
except when the dialects concerned are in the "partially
intelligible" class.) Use availability or unavailability
of such word lists as a data quality control factor
(Naroll 1962:14-18).
CLASSIFICATION OF THE CULTUNIT
It seems useful to distinguish four types of cultunit:
Hopi type.-People who belong to no state but who
speak a common distinct language and who are all
interconnected by successive contact links. Examples:
Hopi, Bella Coola, Naron, Hupa, Nuer.
Flathead type.-People who belong to a state all of
whose members speak a common distinct language.
Examples: Flathead, Swazi, Tikopia.
Aztec type.-People who belong to a state in which
mutually unintelligible dialects occur and who are
domestic speakers of a dialect intelligible to speakers of
the lingua franca of the state, that is, the dialect in
which the state officials usually transact their business.
Examples: Aztecs, Incas, Zulus.
Tarascan type.-People who belong to a state in
which mutually unintelligible dialects occur and who
are domestic speakers of a dialect not intelligible to
speakers of the lingua franca of the state. Examples:
These four cultunit types emerge when we consider
and a communication-link (state or contact group)
these boundaries. If a state has more than one distinct
language spoken within it, then the political unit, as
established by the political boundaries, is subdivided
into cultunits by the linguistic boundaries within the
state. That cultunit formed by the domestic speakers
of the lingua franca of the state is classified as an Aztec
type cultunit; the other cultunits within that state are
classified as Tarascan type cultunits. Thus by definition
we cannot have an Aztec type cultunit except in asso-
ciation with Tarascan type cultunits. (Theoretically,
we could have a state made up entirely of Tarascan
type cultunits, provided the lingua franca of the state
is not spoken domestically by any one. This may indeed
prove to be the case in Switzerland, where the pre-
dominant lingua franca may well be literary German;
literary German seems to be spoken little if at all in the
home by the Allemanic Swiss, who prefer one or another
of the several mutually unintelligible varieties of
Schweizerdeutsch. The question of identifying the
actual lingua franca of supposedly multilingual states
like Canada, Belgium, South Africa, and Switzerland
who theoretically have more than one is a matter for
research; presumably one language in each such state
is most commonly used to transact business among
officials.)
287
 Where a state is linguistically homogeneous, the
state boundary is followed and we get a Flathead
type unit. Where there is no state, linguistic boundaries
only are followed unless contact gaps occur which
break up speech communities into cultunits within
which speech communication presumably flows freely
but between which speech communication presumably
is rare and unimportant; and the speech communi-
cation groups thus defined form Hopi type cultunits.
It is important to remember that some cultunits
differ very little in culture from one another while
others differ very much. Frequently, neighboring
cultunits may differ not at all with respect to certain
traits being studied. But methods of avoiding the
fallacy of counting neighboring and closely related
cultunits repeatedly as independent trials of a func-
tional hypothesis being tested are presented elsewhere
(Naroll 1961a; Naroll and D'Andrade 1963).
In evaluating the cultunit concept, anthropologists
should bear in mind that it is offered as an ideal type,
a standard of reference, and primarily to solve sampling
problems in cross-cultural surveys. Field description
units often will not correspond to the cultunit. Thus
the cultunit is an analytical device parallel to that of
the great cultural tradition as used by Hsu (1963:
chap. II). The cultunit sometimes may be a genuine
social system but often will be only theoretical-an
analytical abstraction. Considered as an analytical
abstraction, the cultunit concept is valuable even
though as Leach (1954) points out, a given human being
may function simultaneously as a member of two
distinct societies, based on two distinct cultunits.
Indeed, the distinction between society and culture
becomes critical when we consider Leach's informant
who functioned both as a Shan and a Kachin. A culture
is a pattern, a set of plans, a blueprint for living. Every facts about particular cultunits to test theories about
culture includes as an element a social system, that is,
a plan for social interaction. A society is an actual
system of social interaction. Among human beings,
such a system usually resembles rather strikingly the
plans in the minds of its members; but this resemblance reduced the number of proposed cultunit types to four,
seldom if ever attains complete identity. Social practice
in most if not all societies departs somewhat from
social theory. The distinction between culture and
society becomes evident the moment we look at social
insects. These have societies but lack cultures. The
social organization plan, which in a human society is
taught anew to each generation of children, is among
social insects communicated genetically. The cultunit
is offered as a unit of comparative statistical analysis
of sets of plans-of social and cultural patterns as they
exist in the minds of culture bearers. Study of actual
social systems is of course relevant to the study of the
plans which are supposed to govern them, but the
unit of comparison is the plan, not the society.
That is why it is usually irrelevant how many
people follow the plan-whether only a few hundred
or many million. The idea of a comparative statistical
study, a cross-cultural survey, is not to assess the general sion. They pay little attention to those dialect dif-
trends among the human race as a whole by counting
heads, as Leach suggests (Leach 1960:137). Instead, it
is to compare culture patterns in order to see if there
are general tendencies governing their construction.
In Sociazl Structure, Murdock had no interest in learning
if bilateral descent was more characteristic of human-
288
This content downloaded from 62.204.192.85 on Fri, 04 Aug 2017 13:39:37 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
ity as a whole than patrilineal descent, matrilineal
descent, or double descent. Murdock was as much in-
terested in double descent, a rare phenomenon found
only among a few exotic peoples, as he was in bilateral
and patrilineal descent, one or the other of which is
found among the vast majority of mankind. Conse-
quently, the number of people who model their be-
havior upon a given culture pattern is irrelevant per
se; if as occasionally happens a particular culture
pattern varies in its social implications with the numbe
of people involved, then but only then is the popu-
lation of the culture-bearing group-the cultunit-
relevant. In such a case, social population is ex hypo-
thesi a factor influencing the situation being studied
and needs to be considered in some sort of multiple
variable analysis along with other factors being con-
sidered. If an investigator suspects that social popu-
lation may be relevant to the problem he is studying,
he should collect population data and test its relevance
directly.
In his latest statement about comparative statistical
studies, Leach (1963:174) points out correctly that
social facts may be statistical phenomena like demo-
graphic or economic information, or they may be non-
statistical jural rules; for the statement of jural rules,
Leach correctly reminds us, statistics are wholly irre-
levant. From this he infers that statistical procedures
are likewise irrelevant in testing theories about jural
rules. Not so. Within each cultunit we search for the
predominant jural rule. But in a statistical study of a
number of cultunits, we may count the frequencies with
which certain sorts of jural rules occur and may com-
pare these frequencies with the implications of a theory
about jural rules. Such a comparison is the purpose of
a cross-cultural survey. A cross-cultural survey uses
culture in general.
Since the cultunit concept is offered as a tool for
comparative statistical studies, it is desirable to have
that concept as nearly uniform as possible. I have thus
which seems to me the feasible-minimum. Were we to
adopt instead the policy of using the socio-cultural
unit recognized by the natives being studied, or by
their ethnographers, a number of inconveniences would
result. Some peoples have no consciousness of them-
selves as a culture-bearing unit, no name for them-
selves as a group, no native definition of their own
ethnic unit. Others define themselves by traits peculiar
to themselves, as logracing among the Timbira. Still
others recognize a nest of unit affiliations whose
relative importance is difficult to assess. Thus the
peasants of the hamlet of Unterhaiuser near Landeck
are in their own minds first of all parishioners of
Feichten; second, citizens of the commune of Kauner-
tal; third, Oberinntalers; fourth, Tyroleans; fifth,
Austrian citizens; sixth, Germans; seventh, Europeans;
and eight, Christians of the Roman Catholic persua-
ferences which make their speech unintelligible to
eastern Tyrolean peasant, and most are probably un-
aware that these differences exist at all. Their state
affiliation with Austria seems less important to them
than their character as Tyroleans.
Ethnographers follow no consistent pattern of unit
CURRENT ANTHROPOLOGY
 definition. The perils of following them blindly are Naroll: ON ETHNIC UNIT CLASSIFICATION
best illustrated by the difficulties of Hobhouse,
Wheeler, and Ginsberg (1930): for example, these men "mouth to mouth"-i.e., from mind to mind-are
counted the Indians of Lower California collectively obviously key elements in defining the culture-bearing
as one unit, and the Waicuri and Pericui of Lower group. A speech community tends to form such a com-
California as two other units; the Hopi as one unit munication net, even though its boundaries may be
and the Moqui (another name for Hopi) as another blurry; translation problems constantly remind us that
unit; the Azande as one unit and Niam-niam (another even closely related languages often lack equivalent
name for Azande) as another unit. In short, in ethnic terms for key cultural concepts. Thus literary German
unit classification as in other concept definition prob- has no equivalent for the English word "fair" as in
lems, the rule by Goodenough (1956:37) applies: the "fair play"; nor has English any equivalent for the
concepts which are suitable for describing behavior German Heimat, which is neither "home" nor "home-
patterns of particular cultures are not necessarily the land," but a little of both. A political state, with its
same as those suitable for comparing these cultures with specialist leaders, forms a communication net of another
others. sort, one in which key concepts can be coined and
Having said all this, it is worth remarking that while argued or ordered into use by the expert leaders of
the cultunit concept often diverges from the concepts the state. In the absence of state organization, a gap
used by natives to identify their own groups or by of two hundred kilometers between the nearest settle-
ethnologists to describe native cultures, yet these diver- ments of technologically primitive people must ordi-
gences are rarely extreme or arbitrary. Usually the narily represent a clear break in the speech commu-
divergences are moderate and within the range of nity's communication net. Samoans and Tongans spoke
variation of divergences among varying native and varieties of Polynesian sufficiently similar so that the
varying ethnographic concepts. The cultunit, I submit, crucial communication question was less often "Can
generally resembles fairly closely at least some you understand what they are saying?" than "Do you
operating social unit within the society wherever these ever talk to them?"
units have sharp boundaries. Its most arbitrary element
is its delineation of boundaries along linguistic con- THE CULTUNIT IN TIME
tinuums from a bibliographic vantage point (see below). The problem also arises of defining cultunits in time
The only ethnic unit definition criterion not con- rather than space. This problem has often been neg-
sidered in the foregoing discussion is that of religion. lected by comparativists in cross-cultural surveys, with
In most civilized parts of Eurasia, as Francis Hsu results which are sometimes disastrous (Pilling 1962).
reminded me in conversation, religion has long been In practice, societies which have kept no written
an important ethnic unit identification criterion. Wher-records might fall into any of three chronological
ever Christianity, Islam, or Buddhism has spread, re- types:
ligious cult membership has involved major cultural Palaeoethnography.-Societies described before
differences. And we are all familiar with the cultural 1492. Herodotus and Tacitus are the best known
significance of such religious groups as Jews, Parsees, European palaeoethnographers; but much palaeo-
Sikhs, and Mormons. In the twentieth century, secular ethnography has been written by Arab and Chinese
ideologies which embody many traditional Judeo- observers.
Christian moral attitudes often play a quasi-religiousAboriginal period.-Cultures described after 1492,
role: cultural differences between Communist and but anti-while still politically independent.
Communist Koreans, Chinese, or Vietnamese seem Colonial period.-Cultures described after 1492,
parallel to seventeenth-century differences between after European conquest. E.g., present-day Navaho
Catholic and Protestant Germans, French, or Ro- culture.
mansch. However, among the vast majority of native Societies which keep written records (including of
cultures, unconverted to religious or secular universal course societies taught to do so by Europeans) present
ideologies stemming from India, the Middle East, or an entirely different problem of periodization. The
Europe, ideological organization membership is almost only general attempts at periodization of history have
never an ethnic definition criterion. been made in connection with theories of rise and fall
Finally, the cultunit concept is not entirely without of civilization, like those by Spengler (1926), Toynbee
theoretical interest. A culture is a plan of behavior. (1947), and Quigley (1961)-of these, Quigley's is by
Although, as Schapera (1956:9) has pointed out, therefar the most nearly acceptable scheme for me. Of
are many Naron bands, there seems to be only one course, conventional historians construct and reach
standard Naron plan for band organization which all fairly broad agreement on particular periodization
the Naron band members seem to have in mind and schemes for particular historical traditions, although
which all Naron bands more or less model themselves they commonly haggle over precise boundary lines;
upon. Culture patterns however are not fixed and very often, of course, histories of monarchies are
immutable; on the contrary they are constantly divided dynastically; and art styles are, of course, also
changing, sometimes very slowly, sometimes very commonly used as period markers.
quickly. These changes presumably occur when The development of a satisfactory general theory of
opinion leaders deliberately or unconsciously change historical periodization is an urgent task, but one
the rules or the texts in repeating them and when fur- which I cannot attempt here. For sampling purposes,
thermore these changes are accepted by their associates,at least, it seems satisfactory simply to use arbitrary
whether deliberately or tacitly. The communication time units, like centuries. (Incidentally, for scientific
nets through which these changes are passed from purposes, it would be a vast improvement on time no-

-Vol. 5 * No. 4 * October 1964 289

This content downloaded from 62.204.192.85 on Fri, 04 Aug 2017 13:39:37 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
tation if the Christian era were dropped. Why not do with the unit, or some portion of it; regional
so by commencing time reckoning from the year ethnographies which deal collectively with groups of
10,000 B.C.? Thus the year 1 B.C. becomes the year sampling units (hence presumably with groups of
10,000 absolute; the year 1 A.D. becomes the year cultunits) are not to be considered. However, it would
10,001 absolute; the year 376 A.D. becomes the year seem wise to admit as a monograph on a particular
10,376 absolute; the year 1962 A.D. becomes the year cultunit a book which, while purporting to deal with
11,962 absolute; while the year 776 B.C. becomes the the entire sampling unit, actually is known to draw
year 09,225 absolute. Such a system would encompass its data chiefly from the cultunit in question. For
dates of all written records. Archaeologists might preferexample, Gusinde (1937), while purporting to deal
to begin an archaeological reckoning 110,000 B.C. or with the Yahgans as a whole, actually draws his
1,110,000 B.C., leaving all absolute historical dates un- data almost entirely from the Ushaia Yahgan; Gusinde
changed in their last five digits while keeping all dates (1931) while purporting to deal with the Onas as a
positive). whole, actually draws his data chiefly from the Ona
proper rather than the Haush Ona; and Radcliffe-
THE CULTUNIT IN CROSS-CULTURAL SURVEYS
Brown (1922:viii, 13, 24-25) while purporting to
Now some comments about the use of the cultunit deal with the Andaman Islanders as a whole, actually
concept in cross-cultural surveys. Ideally, random draws his data chiefly from the North Andaman
sampling should be made from a list of cultunits whose group, whose dialects seem to have been mutually in-
linguistic boundaries or characteristics are described telligible.
and to which a bibliography of basic ethnographies is Some of these units will prove to embrace more than
attached. Such a list should ideally include all cultunits one cultunit as I have defined it above. Some of them
about which a minimally acceptable ethnographic will prove to constitute a cultunit as so defined. Some of
literature exists. I have taken a random sample of all them will prove to comprise only a part of a cultunit.
societies in Murdock's Outline of World Cultures Some of them will prove to be on linguistic continuums
(1958) within world-wide diffusion strips or arcs such that cultunit definition on the terms proposed here
(Naroll 1961a:24-25). Ninety per cent of those which is not possible until a particular "stated dialect" is first
had calendared topically organized monographs on specified. And some of them will prove impossible to
cultunits or on portions of cultunits which containedclassify because the necessary linguistic data is una-
both data on aboriginal periods and certain specified vailable (in some case, forever unavailable because no
data on suicide or homicide were included in Murdock's informants survive). Cultunit classification should
World Ethnographic Sample (Murdock 1957). Thus a proceed with the dialect spoken by the people described
universe which consists of Murdock's World Ethnog- in the monograph which qualified the sampling unit
raphic Sample plus the record-keeping nations repre- bibliographically. Rarely will more than one such
sented in the United Nations Demographic Yearbook monograph involving mutually unintelligible dialects
includes 40 per cent of the modern cultures which are turn up for a single OWC rubric.
extensively described in calendared ethnographic Since cross-cultural surveys usually seek correlations,
literature. (In this sample, no literature was considered the ethnic unit definition problems involved in them
unless it was listed in one of the standard ethnographic boil down to two. First, does the actual sampling unit
bibliographies or was in the Human Relations Area definition used bias the sample and thus affect the
Files). correlations found in the study? Second, does variation
At present, a low-budget cross-cultural survey then in the type of unit studied affect the correlations
would seem to be well-advised to use the World found in the study? This second question is the classic
Ethnographic Sample as its sampling universe; a mod- problem of comparability of units-if the variation in
erate-budget survey would seem to be well-advisedtype to of unit does not affect the correlations the units
sample from the Outline of World Cultures, at least are obviously comparable.
for those areas in which good ethnographic biblio- To answer the first question above, control the
graphies exist (Negro Africa, Oceania, and America sample by classifying it into two groups: Group 1-
north of Guatemala); while a high-budget survey those sampling units which clearly include all of one
might use the Outline of World Cultures as its but no more than one bibliographically acceptable
sampling universe for the whole world. (Certain cate-cultunit; Group 2-the remainder of the sample, i.e.,
gories of OWC units are of course to be ignored if the sampling units which depart from the model or
used as an ethnographic universe for sampling pur- whose boundaries are not clear. Then correlate this
poses.) dichotomy with the traits being studied to see if the
Whether the World Ethnographic Sample or the two groups differ importantly and significantly. For
Outline of World Cultures is used as a sampling uni- example, in a study investigating the relationship
verse, the comparativist will find that many of the between residence rules and descent rules, the sampling
units randomly chosen must be rejected because they
unit control consists in seeing whether Sampling
fail to meet bibliographic requirements. (These requi-
Group 1 and Sampling Group 2 differ in their pro-
rements should be specified objectively and precisely,
portions of matrilineal, patrilineal, bilateral or double
of course.) So sampling must continue in a pre-descent and in their proportions of matrilocal, patri-
determined manner until an acceptable number local,
haveneolocal or bilocal residence. If they do not so
been identified. differ, no harm has been done by the departures from
The bibliographic unit of examination must bethe
the
model in Group 2. If they do so differ, then Group
unit named in the sampling universe list. Only those
2 should be examined to see whether it contains a higher
ethnographies can be examined which purport to deal
proportion of "hits" (cases confirming the hypothesis

290
CURRENT ANTHROPOLOGY

This content downloaded from 62.204.192.85 on Fri, 04 Aug 2017 13:39:37 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
being tested) than does Group 1. If not, then there is Naroll: ON ETHNIC UNIT CLASSIFICATION
still no harm done; but if so, then sampling errors have
biased the results of the study and the investigator of these anthropologists thought that language alone
must allow for these errors by differential weighting was an adequate unit definition criterion.
or by eliminating the excessive proportion of "hits" A new concept of culture-bearing unit, the cultunit,
from Group 2. To answer the second question above, is proposed for use in cross-cultural surveys. The con-
proceed similarly, seeing whether Hopi type units, cept is offered primarily as an ideal type, a base of
Flathead type units, Tarascan type units, Aztec type reference, rather than as an actual working category.
units differ from one another with respect to the traitsA cultunit is defined as a group of territorially con-
being studied, and if so, whether they differ likewise intiguous people who not only are domestic speakers of
proportion of "hits." mutually intelligible dialects but also belong to the
same state or contact group.
SUMMARY Cultunits are classified into four types: the Hopi
type (stateless), the Flathead type (linguistically
This discussion of the problem of defining the "tribe" homogeneous state), the Aztec type (ruling group of a
or "society," that is, the basic culture-bearing unit, linguistically diverse state), and the Tarascan type
begins by reviewing the opinion of a number of (subject group of a linguistically diverse state).
English-speaking anthropologists. Six criteria proposed The problem of classifying units in time as well as
by them are considered: (1) distribution of particular space is considered. Ethnographic data might well be
traits being studied, (2) territorial contiguity, (3) po- classified chronologically as palaeoethnography (be-
litical organization, (4) language, (5) ecological adjust-fore 1492), aboriginal (after 1492 but while still in-
ment, and (6) local community structure. The criterion dependent) and colonial (after conquest by record-
of language is considered essential by all but there are keeping societies).
serious practical difficulties in applying it: (1) defining Finally, a statistical method is proposed to control
and measuring intelligibility of dialects, (2) marking biases due to non-comparability of units or to discrep-
boundaries along linguistic continuums, and (3) ancies between the cultunit concept and the actual
classifying multilingual speakers. Furthermore, none sampling units.

Abstract who are domestic speakers of mutually intelligible dia-

lects and who also belong to the same state or contig-
This paper discusses the general concept of the basic uous contact group. Four types of cultunits can be dis-
culture-bearing unit and proposes a new definition- tinguished: theHopi type, a contiguous linguistic group
the cultunit. This proposal is a response to the need for who belong to no state; the Flathead type, a state whose
units of cross-cultural surveys to be comparable and to members all speak a single language; the Aztec type,
be rigorously defined if these studies are to be validated domestic speakers of the lingua franca of a linguisti-
statistically. Such anthropologists as Schapera, Berndt, cally diverse state; and the Tarascan type, domestic
Whiting, Evans-Pritchard, Reichard, Radcliffe-Brown, speakers of a language other than the lingua franca of
Fortes, Ember, Murdock, Nadel, Leach and Driver a linguistically diverse state. Three periods of time of
have given much thought to the problem of defining any of these four types can also be usefully distin-
basic culture-bearing units. From their writings, we guished: palaeoethnographic periods, aboriginal periods,
can see at least six possible criteria for defining societal and colonial periods. Although the cultunit has some
units: (1) language (which nearly everyone thinks is theoretical justification, it is offered as an arbitrary
important), (2) political organization, (3) territorial definition whose justification is its convenience in
contiguity, (4) distribution of particuar traits being cross-cultural surveys. Through its use, sampling biases
studied, (5) ecological adjustment, and (6) local com- from inconsistent sampling units can be statistically
munity structure. The cultunit concept uses the first controlled, and the importance of diversity of societal
three of these: a cultunit is defined as a group of people type can be statistically assessed.

discussion, one may reasonably expect sidering acceptance or nonacceptance

Comments the descriptions to be modified or of "new" terms and definitions.
elaborated according to the demands In proposing a new term, "cultunit"
By RONALD M. BERNDT* which are made on them, for example, (which could easily be mistaken for
Perth, Western Australia 31 I 64, as new evidence comes to hand. meaning a social unit made up of
Methodologically, then, they can be members of a religious, magical, or
Definitions are, in one sense, shorthand useful; but one of the tests of their secular unit), Naroll takes as his point
descriptions of frequently used con- usefulness is their relevance to specific of departure the concept of "tribe"
cepts or terms, more or less agreed- empirical situations-how far they do or "society." Both these are, he says,
upon formulae enabling discussion to indeed "fit" what they are intended unsatisfactory for comparative pur-
continue without constant explanatory to represent in the real situation. We poses, although he is able to draw
diversions. But in the course of such should keep this in mind when con- upon two (and in part, a third) of the

Vol. 5 * No. 4 * October 1964 291

This content downloaded from 62.204.192.85 on Fri, 04 Aug 2017 13:39:37 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 criteria emphasized in discussion of of any one interact with those ol research workers in the New Guinea
them, in constructing the definition ofseveral others to form a small social Highlands to use this term loosely for
his new term. Naroll rightly sees a world of their own, which overlaps such disparate units as language unit,
need for rigorous definition of "the with other small social worlds. phratry, district, and so on, and its
basic culture-bearing unit" and "the 2. This position is comparable, up use in respect of Aboriginal Australia
proper unit to be used in comparative to a point, as regards many other is so general that I doubt whether a
studies." He claims that "it is im- Australian Aboriginal "tribes." For substitute would meet with any but
portant to distinguish opinions about" instance, in northeastern Arnhem very limited acceptance. Also, I have
these two kinds of unit, but combines Land, each of two exogamous not been able to include a number of
them in putting forward his "new patrilineal moieties includes a number features which would have to be taken
concept of culture-bearing unit," of named, territorially-based, (exo- into account even in "comparing"
designed "for use in cross-cultural gamous) dialect units (mada) and these 3. Nevertheless, I am not
surveys." I found Naroll's discussion "clans" (mala) in a variety of com- convinced that the proposed "ideal
in the main body of his paper a useful binations; each person belongs by type cultunit does, in fact, improve on,
sorting-out of views and detail on descent to a mada-mala pair. The or point up more specifically, what is
this general topic, and the section extent of vocabulary held in common usually designated by such terms as
on "Language" particularly so. As a between any two or more mada has "tribe" and "society," or "cultural
clearing of the ground, so to speak, not been assessed, but it seems fair to bloc" and "an area of common
or (to mix the metaphor) a sorting- say (without going into detail here) culture." Nor do I follow Naroll in
out of the plants already growing that they are not mutually intelligible:his discussion of the concept of
there, the article certainly fills a gap.communication is possible because society as it appears within his cult-
I do not, however, feel the same each adult has learnt some vocabulary unit.
enthusiasm for the new concept of of at least one other mada. With The assertion that if we were "to
cultunit. As presented, it reads to me patrilocal residence, the domestic adopt instead the policy of using the
like a first draft of such a concept- language is predominantly the mada socio-cultural unit recognized by the
showing distinct possibilities, not least of the husband-father, but, a woman natives being studied, or by their
as regards the linguistic distinctions it uses her own mada in speaking to ethnographers, a number of incon-
incorporates, but requiring a great her young children. Overall, and veniences would result" is not open to
deal more work even if "proposed allowing for these differences, the question; what is at issue is (a)
primarily as a conceptual norm to aid culture is very similar: the "vocabu- whether such inconveniences would
anthropologists in their thinking." lary of culture" parallels the dis- worth surmounting, and (b) whether
"Ideal type" or not, its definition tinction between dialects, not that this "policy" would entail more of
leaves much to be desired. For between distinct and separate lan- them than does the new design he
example, the requirement that a guages. Members of adjacent and presents.
"territorial team" should "have an affiliated mada and mala come
official with the special function of The rationale is indicated in the
together for (for example) ritual and
announcing group decisions" is a warning that the cultunit concept is
ceremonial performances, but members
subsidiary part of the definition ofofa the whole cultural bloc never act "an analytical device," "a standard of
"state." Cultunits of "state" type reference," which need have no exact
corporately, or meet as a group.
make up 3 of the 4 types which counterparts in reality. He affirms
3. Or, take a further example from that the cultunit "resembles fairly
Naroll distinguishes, the number
the eastern Highlands of New Guinea. closely at least some operating social
being so limited in order "to have
that concept as nearly uniform as What Naroll would call non-inter- unwit within the society wherever
telligible languages serve as broad these units have sharp boundaries."
possible." This means, of course, that
the "state"-less type must be used to membership-labels for a number of But he is emphatic that in his view
"big names" (native districts), each "the unit of comparison is the plan,
cover a diversity of sub-types, in-
containing two or more villages or not the society." Study of actuality
ferring a far higher degree of
hamlets sited at various "small names" "is of course relevant," but only in a
uniformity than is warranted, and
within them. District boundaries are subsidiary way: "The cultunit is
raising queries about the "rigor" of
territorially defined, and the district offered as a unit of comparative
the definitions involved.
is, broadly speaking, the political unit. statistical analysis of sets of plans-of
To glance at 3 presumably Hopi- Again, apart from linguistic dif- social and cultural patterns as they
type examples: ferences, throughout the whole area exist in the minds of culture bearers."
1. In 1959, my own dissatisfaction there is a more or less common cul- This is all very well if it is seen as
with the use of the term "tribe" in ture. Members of contiguous districts only one kind of comparative ap-
the Western Desert of Aboriginal combine or oppose one another across proach: and certainly the difficulties
Australia led me to look again at linguistic boundaries for fighting, entailed in comparing plans pale
that term, as Naroll has done (Berndt intermarriage, and ritual purposes, and beside the difficulties of comparing
1959:81-107). I suggested that the these shifting spheres of interaction, actual behaviour and systems-in-
units usually called "tribes" in this or potential interaction, are the widest operation. But Elizabeth Colson's
area are in fact dialectal units, ter- social units relevant to these people. warning on this score, published a
ritorially anchored although relatively Clan (village or hamlet) and, except decade ago, is very apposite here
mobile, with flexible territorial and in the south, lineage exogamy, and (Colson 1954, e.g., 44-45, 58). Re-
linguistic boundaries, and sharing an ideal of patrilocal residence, moved from the realm of empirical
what may virtually be called a define the dominant domestic lan- reality, plan-comparison can be-
common culture, with both local guage: but here too a woman speaks come little more than a philo-
authority and links of communication to her young children in her own sophic exercise-or a parlour game,
based very largely on ritual and myth. language-which may or may not be with appropriate (that is, trivial)
Kinship aside, exogamy hinges on the same as her husband's. prizes, if, in fact, "the idea of a
local and totemic, not on linguistic, I would not use the term "tribe" in comparative statistical study, a cross-
affiliations. But the dialectal unit is any of these briefly noted examples, cultural survey, is... to compare cul-
not the widest social unit: members although it is becoming common for ture patterns in order to see if there

292 CURRENT ANTHROPOLOGY

This content downloaded from 62.204.192.85 on Fri, 04 Aug 2017 13:39:37 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 are general tendencies governing their Naroll: ON ETHNIC UNIT CLASSIFICATION
construction"
The definition of "cultunits in time" proximate actual ethnic units much of tive units, the omission of the ethnic
is even more arbitrary than that of the time. name as a criterion leads to over
"cultunits in space;" for example, in The concept of the ethnic unit particularization.
conjunction with the cultunit-type implies that some people tend to My reason for adding the ethnic
labels of Hopi, and so on, one might interact more with each other than name as a variable in defining the
suspect an America-centred perspective with others. This statement can be cultunit is not only to bring it into
from the date-line of 1492, that made in spite of the existence of closer proximity with ethnic unity,
distinguishes the aboriginal period marginal individuals and of ethnic but also because I am interested in
from the colonial period. (Wasn't continua. People who interact with making statements about the relation-
this the time when "Columbus sailed each other over long periods of time ship between interethnic or inter-
the ocean blue," so blazing the trail, tend to distinguish themselves from cultunit relations and the internal
so to speak, for the cultunit, or series others by the use of a common name social orders of the cultunits. The
of cultunits, now known as the United as well as by tending to speak the typology of the cultunit does not
States?) I mention this last point, also, same language and to form a common now indicate ethnic consciousness with
in relation to unit comparability; the government. Even when such groups the degree of assurance necessary if
"nest of unit affiliations" referred to are separated from each other and we are going to study problems
as an example of self-definition among exist under different governments, dealing with interethnic relations and
the inhabitants of Unterhauser would they continue for some time to use with the general area of diffusion
seem to have much in common, in this a common name as a symbol of ethnic dynamics and integration.
respect, with the differing cultunits oneness. Contrariwise, groups which Naroll suggests that it is the nature
delineated for Feichten in Kaunertal happen to live together under the of some problems that reference to the
in Oberinntal. In other words, the same rule, and even at times speak cultunit will not be particularly help-
new term which is proposed will, I the same language, may have different ful towards their solution. It might
am sure, involve more or less the samenames for themselves, for instance, be said that my argument for adding
difficulties (in its definition and in its the Chinese Moslems and the Chinese. the ethnic name to the criteria used for
use) as those currently in common use. Because the use of an ethnic name determining cultunits should be dis-
At least in its present form, it does not implies a great deal about how missed in these terms; the cultunit
seem to me to be any more useful for members of a group feel about them- cannot be used to serve all masters.
comparative purposes than those we selves, I suggest that the use of ethnic However, interethnic relations include
already have. names be added to those criteria which a large area of social organization and
define the cultunit. A case in point are so important in influencing culture
By FRANK D. BESSAC* are the Tumet Mongols of Inner that any general ethnic type scheme,
Mongolia. The Tumets of age 50 to 80 if it is to be acceptable for arranging
Appleton, Wisconsin, U.S.A. 14 II 64 material cross-culturally, should give
spoke little Mongolian as children,
nor did their parents speak Mongolian. recognition to this broad range of
The cultunit is not a culture area, i.e., problems (cf. van Nieuwenhuijze
a contiguous area of cultural similarity, The Tumet Banner is controlled by 1963).
nor does it arrange the material so the Chinese, and, because it is south
of the Yellow River, the people who Admittedly, it is not always easy
that it can be studied in terms of a
inhabit it are separated from other to delimit the use of an ethnic name
limited number of related problems,
Mongols. Therefore, according to correctly. However, my experience
like the culture type schemata of
Naroll's system of classification, they has been that this is no more difficult
Steward (1955). On the contrary, than the accurate use of the criteria
culture content is kept at a minimum were not Mongols but Chinese. How-
ever, these people called themselves now proposed to determine cultunits.
in determining the cultunit so that
Mongols, and, believing that lan- The use of an additional criterion
the nature of the construct will not
guage was a means of maintaining creates additional types. The classifica-
by itself give an improper bias in tion I propose is as follows:
cross-cultural sampling. Because of this ethnic unity, they had their children
aspect and due to the nature of the learn Mongolian. Thus, the group Hopi type.-People who belong to
no state but share a common ethnic
criteria that define the cultunits, they became Mongols! If the criterion of the
ethnic name had been included in name, speak a common distinct lan-
appear to be an approximation to
ethnic units-which are sometimes establishing cultunits, these people guage, and are all interconnected by
would have been continuously clas- successive contact links.
called tribes, societies, nations-in
such a form that the ways of life of sified as Mongols, a classification Yuki type.-People who belong to
these peoples can be compared cross- which better approximates the actual no state, have no ethnic name for
ethnic condition. themselves, but share a common
culturally. Naroll is to be congra-
tulated because he goes a long way in The cases of the Tumet Mongols distinct language and are inter-
presenting a good solution to a diffi- and Chinese Moslems illustrate in- connected by successive contact links.
cult problem. stances where the criteria of language, Mongol type.-People who form at
But what is an ethnic unit? I would territorial contiguity, and political least one state, share a common
define it as a group of people who organization put people of different ethnic name, and speak a common
often share a common, self-applied ethnic units into one cultunit to no distinct language.
appellaeion, have a sense of common advantage, as far as I can see. In Kazak type.-People who live in
identity, and share a belief in these instances, the approach results in one or more states in which mutually
a common heritage. Although this over generalization. In South China, unintelligible dialects occur and who
definition might be acceptable, it is where there are many different lan- are domestic speakers of a dialect not
difficult to make it operational. It guages, but where the speakers of intelligible to speakers of the lingua
appears to me that the cultunit, even some of these do not identify them- franca of the state, but who have a
though it does not attempt to define selves primarily by linguis,tic area but common ethnic name.
ethnic groups, is defined by criteria first of all as Chinese and secondly Aztec type.-People who share a
which, in fact, will make it ap- in terms of geographic and administra- common ethnic name and belong to

Vol. 5 * No. 4 * October 1964 293

This content downloaded from 62.204.192.85 on Fri, 04 Aug 2017 13:39:37 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
a state in which mutually un-
intelligible dialects occur, and who
are domestic speakers of a dialect
intelligible to speakers of the lingua
franca of the state.
Mohave type.-People who share a
common ethnic name and belong to a
state all of whose members speak a
common language.
Theoretically, it is possible for a
state to exist whose people all speak
a common distinct language but which
contains no group possessing a
common ethnic name. The factors
which might give rise to such a
condition could exist in the transition
to or from feudalism.
By ELIOT D. CHAPPLE*
Orangeburg, New York, U.S.A. 25 II 64
In his concern with developing
sampling designs for cross-cultural
surveys, Naroll has attempted to
define a homogeneous unit, which he
labels a "cultunit," his shorthand for
a culture-bearing unit. His review of
the various attempts by others to face
up to the same problem leads him to
set up 6 criteria for definition; these
involve very different orders of ab-
straction. He regards 3 of the criteria
as common to all preceding definitions:
(1) common language (which he
defines both phonetically and seman-
tically with a minimum rule of
"recognizable cognates"), (2) territorial
contiguity (contiguity being in-
troduced, instead of propinquity, to
deal with land or water barriers, as in
Polynesia), and (3) political organiza-
tion. Here he is torn between formal
structure and the occurrence of re-
cognized leadership hierarchies (which
can be defined operationally as sets
[see Chapple and Coon 1942]), since
all of such structures are dynamic in
the individuals included within them.
However, important as is the
problem, Naroll's solution is less than
satisfactory. Granted, that he is
careful to say he is dealing with
"ideal types"-though whether out-
right adherence to Platonism is suf-
ficient excuse seems arguable. He who
wishes to compare cultures as entities
has the responsibility of coming up
with unequivocal operations which
do not involve a penumbra of un-
certainty (and not in Heisenberg's
sense either).
Further, we must realize that in
statistical theory we have to concern
ourselves with homogeneity. Naroll's
statement that each sampling unit has
a mathematically definable chance of
being selected is true, but not suf-
ficient; he must be sure that his
sampling constructs do not introduce
heterogeneity which he plasters over
with operationally non-comparable
criteria.
294
This content downloaded from 62.204.192.85 on Fri, 04 Aug 2017 13:39:37 UTC
Naroll's comment that "the cultunit
generally resembles fairly closely at
least some operating social unit within
society wherever these units have
sharp boundaries" seems to indicate a
more useful direction of inquiry; that
is, a precise consideration of the factors
which make it possible to isolate social
systems, systems of social interaction,
within cultures. Quantitative factors
applied to the frequency of relation-
ships promise more effective cut-off
points for cross-cultural survey
purposes than the criteria Naroll uses.
Their limitations-that sufficient data
are not always available to isolate the
systems significantly-is hardly reason
for not using them in future work.
By GERTRUDE E. DOLE*
New York City 13 II 64
I applaud Naroll's attack on the
problem of defining an ethnic unit to
be used in comparative studies of
cultures.
If I interpret his paper correctly,
Naroll is interested in defining a
unit of people in such a way that each
unit will represent a whole and
separate culture. For this purpose, the
unit must be defined in terms of a
criterion or multiple criteria which
are functionally related to cultural
unity.
There is no inherent relation between
cultural unity and the two criteria
used by Naroll, common distinct lan-
guage and territorial unity. For this
reason, it is impossible to classify all groups. Other aspects of the culture,
societies according to a typology which
is based on linguistic and territorial
unity with the expectation that the
units identified will in each case bear
a common culture.
Virtual linguistic unity mav occur for munication.
a considerable time among groups who
have separated and are at permanent
enmity with one another, as among
some of the Northern Cayapo groups
of eastern Brazil. Some of these groups
would constitute a single contact group
in Naroll's terms, but, because of their ceremonies with one another. Some of
mutual hostility and various cultural
differences, they can hardly be con-
sidered as forming an ethnic unit with
a common culture. Moreover, some
groups such as the Nyul-Nyul and
Bard of northwestern Australia speak
an interintelligible dialect and con-
stitute a contact group but, never-
theless, have different kinship systems
as well as other cultural differences.
Hence, these groups would not
together constitute a single cultural
unit.
As Naroll has pointed out, the
difficulties of dividing peoples into
units with common distinct languages
are formidable. It would facilitate
classification if this step could be
avoided. The criterion of distinctness
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
in language implies that different
cultural units are to be distinguishedby
it. But it seems to me that the
problem of identifying comparable
ethnic units, each of which bears a
whole culture, does not entail distin-
guishing different cultures, or cul-
ture types. Whether a culture differs
from, is similar to, or is interrelated
with other cultures is irrelevant to the
problem of identifying the culture-
bearing unit. For this purpose, the
language spoken by one unit need
not be distinct from that spoken by
another.
For the purpose of identifying units
which bear whole cultures, the most
useful criterion is political autonomy.
(This is, in fact, Naroll's principal
criterion for classifying units bearing
cultures on the state level.) If separate
local groups participate in the same
political organization, we can be
certain that they bear a common
culture. But if two separate local
groups are autonomous, they do not
have the same political organization.
The political aspects of their cultures
may differ from one another signi-
ficantly. Because of their separate and
distinct political systems, these two
sovereign groups bear not one culture
but two cultures.
Moreover, the political group is the
easiest unit for ethnologists to identify
in the literature, since, by definition,
a political system serves to distinguish
an autonomous group from all other
on the other hand, frequently manifest
overlap and, in fact, connect societies
with their neighbors in a virtually
infinite chain through trade, inter-
marriage, ceremonies, and verbal com-
An instance of autonomous neigh-
boring groups which are connected
with one another by complex inter-
relationships is the Upper Xingu'
region of Brazil. Here the local groups
intermarry, trade, and conduct
these groups speak interintelligible
dialects and would therefore consti-
tute an ethnic unit on the basis of
linguistic similarity and territorial
unity. But others speak entirely dif-
ferent languages and would thus form
separate ethnic units on this basis.
Yet, in spite of linguistic differences,
all of these groups resemble one
another equally in most other aspects
of culture. However, all have some
cultural differences, such as economic
specialties, which suggest that they
should all be considered as separate
culture-bearing units. The difficulty of
determining a consistent classification
of these groups is easily solved by
separating them along the lines of
political autonomy.
CURRENT ANTHROPOLOGY
By HAROLD E. DRIVER* Naroll: ON ETHNIC UNIT CLASSIFICATION

Bloomington, Indiana, U.S.A. 7 II 64

minimum number of units necessary to list of 200 are cognates is certainly not
display all the variation within the generally true. The languages cited by
My views on ethnic unit classification
data, referred principally to these Lees (1953) average about 80% of
will be made clearer if I first describe
chains and meshes of language dis- cognates shared after 1,000 years of
what I have done with North
tribution in the Arctic, Sub-Arctic, separation, and it is doubtful if any of
American data. In 1948, I began to
and Great Basin areas. I had no the pairs of languages separated by
collect data covering the entire North
problem in other areas where the lan- this interval of time are mutually
American continent with a new
guage units matched those of the intelligible.
technique. Instead of using cards or
ethnographic literature quite closely. Naroll's classification-of ethnic units
paper slips to excerpt information
In short, I used the language unilts as into Hopi, Flathead, Aztec, and Ta-
from sources, I entered the data direct-
ethnic units over most of the continent, rascan types introduces some order
ly on maps in parallel hatching of
but subdivided these in the 3 areas into the present chaos. I mildly object
various colors so that multiple subject
mentioned above. At this date I would to his using the names of localized
units could be superimposed on the
territory of a single ethnic unit. None
add that differences in biological type, peoples for ethnic units of world-wide
as in Africa, are an additional basis on scope. I would prefer descriptive catch
of the Indian "tribal" maps available
at the time had enough names of tribes,
which to separate ethnic units. phrases such as stateless-language type
In world-wide cross-cultural studies for Hopi type, state-language type for
villages, and bands on them to take
care of most of the names of ethnic by Naroll and the Yale-Harvard- Flatnead type, state-lingua-franca type
units which kept cropping up in the Pittsburgh schools, the ethnic unit for Aztec type, and state-multiple-
ethnographic literature, and none of becomes more critical because the langzages type for Tarascan type.
the maps could be purchased in out- samples include a smaller percentage The notion shared by many world-
line form by the 100. Therefore, I of the total number of cases than my wide cross-cultural researchers, that
solicited help from 5 ethnologists and North American Indian work and they can eliminate diffusion and
drafted a new map (Driver et al. also because geographical continuity genetic heritage factors by choosing
1953), and made outline copies of it is broken. The world-wide cross-cul- their samples so that each ethnic unit
available in any quantity needed. This ture researcher has no opportunity to falls in a different culture area and a
map employed 3 kinds of lines: a solid draw historical or evolutionary in- different language family, is wishful
line for genetic language family ferences from relatively complete thinking. Almost all culture areas have
boundaries; a broken line for geographical distributions, because he been determined impressionistically;
boundaries between mutually unin- often deliberately selects his ethnic rarely has an explicit quantitative
telligible languages belonging to the units to avoid geographical continuity method been employed. Furthermore,
same genetic language family; and a- and language family co-membership. culture areas are of multiple
dotted line to separate mutually in- Having thus eliminated the most sizes or orders: Wissler (1917) and
telligible dialects of the same language obvious aids to interpretation of his Kroeber (1923) both cut up the
or geographically distinct ethnic units data, he must rely more heavily on the Americas into 15 or more culture area
with no dialectic differences. The lan- mere statistical results to obtain the for descriptive purposes and inter-
guage families were the ones pre- causal and evolutionary sequences he pretations of localized phenomena, yet
viously listed and described by Voe- is trying to establish. In my work, the they treated the two American con-
gelin and Voegelin (1941), and Hoijer statistics have been ancillary to the tinents as a single culture area, center-
(1946). In the jargon of glotto- conventional distribution methods of ing in Middle America, for their more
chronology, they are genetic families comparative ethnology, as Kroeber speculative theories of origin and
with time depths up to about 5,000 and I said (Driver and Kroeber 1932: dispersal of widespread culture
years. Naroll seems to have missed the255). Other limitations of world-wide elements and complexes. These men
significance of these 3 kinds of lines. cross-cultural method have already also slit their 15 or more areas into
The above key map was used in been discussed rather fully by Kobben smaller subdivisions. Although culture
two later publications in which (1961) and need not be gone into areas are supposed to package geo-
considerable numbers of page-size further here. graphically and historically connected
maps displayed the geographical Naroll's discussion of ethnic unit traits together, an alarming number
distributions over the North American classification is definitely the fullest of items spill over the boundaries of
continent of a total of about 500 and best so far, but his proposed any and every culture area scheme, as
subject units (Driver and Massey 1957; solution of the problem seems to me the many maps in Driver and Massey
Driver 1961). A casual glance at these less happy than his assemblage of the (1957) show beyond all doubt. There-
maps reveals the fact that the shades of issues involved. For instance, the term fore, the selection of only one ethnic
gray employed are, in almost all in- "cultunit" seems awkward. It doesn't unit from each culture area and each
stances, coterminous with the linguistictell one whether it refers to an ethnic language family can lessen the number
boundaries. However, in the Arctic, unit (village, band, tribe, state) or to of historical connections in a corpus
Sub-Arctic, and Great Basin areas, the a subject unit (culture element, trait, of data, but it cannot eliminate them
large numbers of dotted lines indicate complex, assemblage, theme, pattern); and tell where they occur and where
a number of chains or meshes of and a novice might even think it has they do not.
mutual intelligibility (Swadesh 1959). something to do with a religious cult. In spite of such criticisms of world-
This means that neighboring forms of Territorial contiguity can scarcely be wide cross-cultural studies, I believe
speech so separated are mutually in- demanded of all ethnic units, because that the majority of the generalizations
telligible, but that forms of speech migratory peoples are sometimes split they assert, often from small samples,
separated by considerable distances into two or more territories, and will be confirmed later by2 larger
within such chains or meshes may not modern nations, such as Pakistan, samples and more detailed analyses.
be mutually intelligible. In my study sometimes occupy two separated Naroll's practical suggestions in the
referred to by Naroll (Driver 1956: regions. The notion that two languages last section of his paper are good ones
15), my remarks about dividing ex- are mutually intelligible when 80% and will improve cross-cultural
tensive territorial groups into the of the words in the glottochronology research. To these I would add only a

Vol. 5 * No. 4 * October 1964 295

This content downloaded from 62.204.192.85 on Fri, 04 Aug 2017 13:39:37 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 plea for more regional comparative
studies in which all, or almost all,
available ethnic units are utilized.
By PAUL DUCEY*
Cairo, Egypt, U.A.R. 25 I 64
No one would deny that the problem
which Naroll has set for himself is
an important one. Clarification of such
basic concepts is long overdue. Un-
fortunately, however, his discussion of
the problem confuses me.
There are two implicit assumptions
which are particularly disturbing. One
is the correlation of "tribe" and
"society." Needless to say, tribes may
be societies, but societies are not
necessarily tribes. The other is his
equating the peasants of Tyrol or the
people of the United States with the
cultunit, as defined and, especially, as
presented in terms of 4 types of cul-
tunits.
Turning to Naroll's explicit position,
a number of points are disturbing. To
begin with, there is the proposed term
"cultunit." Why should we continue
to coin new terms when established
vocabulary would serve our purposes?
Ethnic unit, it seems to me, would be
equally appropriate and avoids
possible religious associations. Second-
ly, there is the use of the terms
"tribe," "society," and "state." After
presenting and analyzing a sampling
of definitions of tribe and briefly com-
menting on the concept of society,
Naroll proceeds to obscure the concept
of the "state" by equating it with
"tribe." Certainly, if the "state" is to
be meaningful, there must be a quali-
tative distinction between tribe and
state. Moreover, there must be
distinctions between tribe, nation, con-
federation, state, and empire.
A third problem is presented by the
emphasis on "war-making authority"
in both the analysis of "tribe" and
"cultunit." Unless one uses a very
artificial definition of "war-making
authority," few ethnic units are
characterized by having leaders who
can "assert and wield the exclusive
right to declare and conduct warfare"
or "lethal group combat." As Hsu
reminded Naroll, religion is an im-
portant criterion. I would go further
and say it far outweighs the ability
or right to wage war. Undoubtedly,
one of the major trends in the cultural
development of man has been the
increasing restriction of the right of
ethnic units to wage war.
The fourth thing that bothers me is
the distinction of the four types of
cultunits. Subsuming the Aztec, Inca,
and Zulu under one heading cannot be
justified. Moreover, in so far as cross-
cultural surveys are the basis for
296
This content downloaded from 62.204.192.85 on Fri, 04 Aug 2017 13:39:37 UTC
defining the unit, the "type" should specified set of criteria).
encompass all levels of integration. Let us consider the Nootka and
Where would Naroll place the Swiss, Kwakiutl. They are located next to
Austrians, or Americans, either as each other and have many cultural
societies or in terms of component similarities, presumably because of ex-
ethnic units? tensive borrowing and because of
Finally, I am in complete disagree- parallel adaptations to similar en-
ment with his idea of "the cultunit vironments. They would still be
in time." There are several major separate and independent cases if we
questions here. Why do we need a chose to define a sample unit as a
distinction between "palaeoethnogra- continuously distributed population
phy" and the "aboriginal period?" whose language or lingua franca is
Were the "palaeoethnographers" less different from the dominant languages
observant than Columbus and the of neighboring populations (cf. Ember
explorers who followed him? Why 1963) and if they both had been
advocate dropping the Christian era selected randomly from some list of
in favor of a pre-Christian time scale societies.
which assumes the Christian era and The supposedly thorny problem of
arbitrarily sets the beginning of the the comparability of units cannot be
time scale at 10,000 B.c.? Such a resolved by any statistical maneuvers,
system would, of course, encompass such as the method of inspecting
"dates of all written records," but so proportions of "hits" that Naroll
would any date beyond 4,000 B.C., or suggests. Nothing will convince his
perhaps, 3,500 B.C. Archaeologists have disdainful dinner companion that the
considered the problem of time scales, Yahgan and the English are "com-
but only two alternatives have parable," no matter how many tables
attracted attention. One may use years or numbers are presented, and -no
before present or a B.C./A.D. date. It attempt should be made to do so. In
really does not matter. Scholars can cross-cultural research, we are not
interpret either in terms of the tilme interested in global comparisons of
scale understood in their respective cultures, as was the old "comparative
ethnic unit orientation. method." Rather we are concerned
with examining relationships between
specific variables-e.g., degree of
By MELVIN EMBER* economic and degree of political
development-in a sample of societies.
Yellow Springs, Ohio, U.S.A. 17 II 64
The definition of a sample of societies.
The definition of a sample unit
Since Naroll's paper is a thoughtful
depends solely upon the purpose of the
contribution to the methodology of
study. To put the issue simply, if our
cross-cultural research, and since it
intent is to examine the relationship
may therefore be consulted by those
between volume and weight in "fruit,"
who are interested in conducting such
it does not matter one whit that we
research, a few errors which appear
are dealing with "apples" and "pears"
in it should be corrected at once.
or even "watermelons."
At the beginning of the paper, Naroll
observes that cross-cultural studies
heretofore have never rigorously
By HELMUTH FUCHS*
defined the units being considered. At
the risk of appearing immodest, I Caracas, Venezuela 17 II 64
must point out that the study of mine
to which he refers is an exception The criteria Naroll furnishes for the
(Ember 1963:234-236). definition and delimitation of the
Naroll says it is fallacious to count minimum culture unit (as opposed to
neighboring and closely related cul- ethnic unit) for classificatory purposes
tunits as independent cases. This is not are, if they are necessary at all, only
necessarily so. The independence of some of those already considered in a
any two given cases has nothing to docentury of anthropological literature.
with how geographically close they There is a considerable number of
are to each other or how similar they publications whose titles indicate,
are culturally. It is strictly a statistical implicitly or explicitly, that -their
matter. The independence of cases is authors were aware of the dangers of
guaranteed by one condition, namely, false generalization and abstraction
that every sample case has had the in this respect.
same probability of being included in It is difficult in a few words to
the sample (which means that the summarize the manifold factors in the
selections have been made according to problem of establishing units in
some kind of random procedure). anthropology, and especially in cul-
Naturally, every sample case must tural anthropology. However, some
also be a separate case (which means principles should be stated and some
that every sample case must be defined questions should be asked. For
as different according to some example, is an ethnic unit (if it exist
CURRENT ANTHROPOLOGY
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 per se as a culture bearing entity) a Naroll: ON ETHNIC UNIT CLASSIFICATION
simple or complex phenomenon?
Further, what is its grade of integra- 1949), we might consider for our pur- state a partition rule (which he does),
tion, and is it mono- or polydi- pose the numerical value of culture- but he must also indicate why this rule
mensional? Second, is any category- bearers (F) of a culture and the range results in "comparable" sets (which
defined by a member of the culture (R) of a culture within a given he does not do). This is a critical
or by an outsider-of a supposed cul- sequence of cultures. The two extremes, defect.
ture entity or a part of one (a) (1) all the inhabitants of the world Many of the potential solutions to
congruent with regard to quality having the same culture, and (2) each his problem are meaningless in
(specification, function, structure), inhabitant of the world having his anthropological investigations. For
quantity (numerical value of in- own culture, are either utopic or else example, Naroll points out that the
cidents), genesis and development, possible only in the case of single number of people in each "tribe" (i.e.,
chronological position and duration, survivors. The bulk of the data may the number of elements in each set) is
and spatial extension, with any other behave in accordance with Zipf's law irrelevant in a comparative study of
category of the same or another of equilibrium:
their culture. Hence a definition of
culture entity or a part of one? And "comparable" sets that involves their
(b) does such a defined category log F = p - log R
cardinality is useless. Further, the
coincide with a likewise self- or other- "tribes" of the world are made up of
defined ethnic unit or a part of one? in good approximation of a hyperbola.
distinct individuals, i.e., they are
Third, is this problem restricted to It is also likely that, as in the case of
disjoint sets (with rare exceptions such
ethnic units and cultural units, or do language, the formation of a "new"
as the person cited by Naroll who
similar problems arise in other anthro- culture is easier, the smaller the group
functioned both as a Shan and a
pological fields, with regard to (minimum value of F). This scheme
Kachin). Hence it is futile to define
archaeological units, linguistic units, effectively illustrates the relative in-
"comparability" in terms of equality
sociological units, educational units, adequacy of classificatory systems, of sets.
religious units, biological units, and so insofar as it does not matter whether
Since these formal properties of sets
on? Fourth, can the result of such an or not the unit (R) is strictly definable
are not very relevant in an anthro-
over-all cross-study, undertaken a or not: the scheme is built upon the
pological context, we move on to
priori or a posteriori, be classified at relation between two more or less
consider the formal properties of the
all? And if so, is classification a arbitrarily chosen units. We have
partitioning rule. Such a rule permits
sufficient statistical method to serve ignored the question of whether cul-
one to decide whether any given pair
anthropology as a tool and not a toy? tural data really do behave in ac-
of people belong in the same set or not.
cordance with Zipf's law, but it is
Instead of searching for a general For example, consider the following
highly probable that they do. If not,
"skin" of culture or for specific skins rule (a): If x has the same sex as y,
then we may continue packaging
of culture categories, and defining they go into the same set; if not, they
cultural data into classificatory
units for classificatory purposes, we go into different sets. This rule will
systems, and then, certainly, cultunits
must first understand the usefulness of partition a universe of people into two
will be of great interest to comparative
classificatory systems and statistics in sets: male, female. A second rule (b)
anthropology, but they will be subject
comparative anthropology. Possibly involving marital status would parti-
to revision of a statistical, rather than
"The Use of Computers in Anthro- tion the universe into three sets: un-
an anthropological, order.
pology" will throw new light on this married people; married people;
problem. widows and widowers. A conjunction
Meanwhile, the question arises By HANS HOFFMANN* of these two rules (a and b) would
whether the present emphasis on partition the universe into six sets:
sampling cultural data for a kind of Clinton, New York, U.S.A. 17 II 64 bachelors, husbands, widowers,
IBM evaluation will be adequate to spinsters, wives, widows. Formally, a
arrive at the results comparative an- A paper that offers a new funda- conjunction may be interpreted as a
thropology expects. At present, we mental unit to a science immediately single rule.
package material into classificatory raises two questions: What is the ra- At this point we (somewhat ar-
systems which later prove too large or tionale for this particular unit? How bitrarily) define "comparable sets" to
too small. Anthropologists react to is it superior to existing formulations? be those resulting from a single parti-
these defects by changing the Naroll does not discuss the second tion rule. Since all six of the above
package-by constructing "new" questions. He documents the absence sets were defined by a single rule,
systems of classification. This fact of concensus among anthropologists we consider them to be comparable to
probably demonstrates the relative about the basic unit in their investiga-each other. We may compare this rule
unfitness of such classificatory systems
tions. He does not, however, explicitly with another that includes a dis-
for generalization in anthropology. relate his "cultunit" to the problems junction of partitioning criteria. An
Language and political structure are raised by this discussion. Nor does he example would be: x is a member of
the main criteria in Naroll's "Classi- discuss its advantages over such units the same set as y if x and y practice
fication of the Cultunit"-in spite of as those of the Human Relations the same type of economy and live in
the fact that nine criteria (which were Area Files. Thus the potential impact settlements that are either patrilineal
by no means sufficient) were presented of his cultunit remains obscure. or socially stratified. This will parti-
in the foregoing "Definition of the Naroll delimits the first question by tion the universe into many sets. The

His problem is to define the word

Cultunit." Zipf's law of balance should
be remembered. This law shows a
mathematical behavior regarding the
self-structuring of language. I would
not be surprised if a similar law of
balance (equilibrium) could not be
shown to apply to the self-structuring
of culture. Following Zipf (1935; 1946;
stating that the cultunit (or "tribe") question is, are these sets "comparable"
is offered primarily to solve sampling in the sense defined earlier; i.e., are
problems in cross-cultural research. they the result of a single partition
His objective is to partition the rule?
ethnographic universe into "tribes" To answer this question we have to
(sets that are comparable to each other.look at the form of this rule, which is
(a and [b or c]). It can easily be
"comparable." Not only must Naroll proved that the statement (a and [b or

Vol. 5 - No. 4 * October 1964 297

This content downloaded from 62.204.192.85 on Fri, 04 Aug 2017 13:39:37 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
c] implies the statement ([a and b] which corresponds to Naroll's, ter- By DAVID LANDY*
or [a and c]). In other words, some ritorial contiguity in the sense- of "a
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, U.S.A. 21 11 64
of the sets resulted from applying the geographically contiguous territory"
rule (a and b), i.e., same economy is usual but not universal. Thus the
The problem to which Naroll ad-
and patrilineal descent, while the otherI1/2 million Javanese in Bantam, West
dresses his paper is one that seems
sets resulted from the rule (a and c); Java, are divided by about 300 kilo-
limited to the social sciences, since zoo-
i.e., same economy and degree of social metres of Sundanese country (thus ex-
logists studying forms of life other
stratification. Hence, this partitioningceeding Naroll's limit of 200 kilo-
than human seem generally content,
of the universe resulted from the ap- metres) from the main body of Ja-
for comparative purposes, to use such
plication of two different rules and, vanese with whom they nonetheless
concepts as "aggregation," "colony,"
therefore, does not consist of com- share the remaining 4 criteria in my
"crowd," "population," and even
parable sets. (There are further list). In Southwest Sumatra, the high-
"society," each of which, in com-
problems here; i.e., are these sets land Lembak are separated from the
parative terms, becomes almost
disjoint? but that is another story.) Lowland Lembak by the Redjang and
coterminous with species (e.g., Allee
We may conclude that a partition rule the Barisan Mountains but still con-
1958). In zoology generally, the limits
containing a disjunction will not, in stitute a single ethnic unit. Similarly,
or boundaries of species remain un-
general, yield comparable sets. the Redjang Abeus of the Trans-
solved and vexing, and, as in the case
We are now in a position to return Barisan plains are separated by the
of defining society and culture in
to Naroll's partition rule: x is in the Malays of Rawas from the main body
anthropology, the problem seems to
same set as y if x and y are speakers of Redjang in the Barison highlands,
increase in complexity with the
of the same language and belong either but the two still constitute one ethnic
growth of knowledge. Kroeber and
to the same state or the same contact unit. In my view, absence or partial
Kluckhohn's (1963) brilliant tour de
group. invalidity of any one of the 5 criteria
force performed a useful service in
To abstract the structure of a does not invalidate the other 4.
examining hundreds of definitions of
sentence from the morass of its actual With regard to the time factor, I culture, but in the end they seemed
and implied meanings requires a clear suggest the addition of a fourth no nearer a universally operational
head and high courage. Hence it is period, that of post-colonial or in- definition than their predecessors.
with some diffidence that I interpret dependent, unless Naroll were to insist It is just possible that these kinds of
Naroll's rule as a disjunction. On the that the new independent states of taxonomic dilemmas are in their
other hand, I suspect that a modest Africa and Asia stand in much the nature insoluble and the concepts
amount of tinkering may be sufficient same relation to their constituent involved must remain fluid and
to convert it to a conjunction. ethnic units as did the previous unbound. Admittedly, if one wishes
colonial governments. to compare "culture-bearing units"
I agree with Naroll that the term statistically (or any elements of them),
By MERVYN JASPAN*
"ethnic unit" is unsatisfactory but do one has to define the unit. The animal
Canberra, A.C.T., Australia 13 II 64 not consider his neologism "cultunit" biologists may at least attach limits to
any improvement. In laying stress on their groupings in terms of fairly
Naroll's paper summarises the many culture rather than social structure specific gross anatomical structures,
imprecise and dissimilar uses that are and territorial contiguity, I find this except, perhaps in the instance of
made of the terms "society," "tribe," innovation no better than "ethnic microscopic life. But the anthropolo-
"culture," and "people" to denote an unit." On the contrary, it introduces gist is dealing with populations which
ethnic unit. After discussing several new facets of imprecision and possible must be defined not in terms of
definitions of ethnic units, he discerns ambiguity. Naroll has himself in- physical forms but cultural forms. It is
at least 6 (no more than 6 are sub- dicated this in remarking that "field almost as if the zoologist were called
sequently considered) criteria used by description units will often not upon to classify his groupings in terms
anthropologists in their definitions. To correspond to the cultunit." It is by of functions-what the animals do-
my mind the first of these ("distribu- no means certain that cultures have instead of forms or structures.
tion of particular traits being studied") clearly discernible boundaries, and Assuming that the problem is "signi-
is meaningless in such a definition un- least of all in a spatial sense. Until ficant," there is no question of the
less we are told what the comparison ethnographers can agree on the un- highly stimulating manner in which
is for. The sixth criterion ("local mistakable boundaries or "skins" of Naroll has approached it. However,
community structure") might well be cultures, attempted digital counts and he has not, in my opinion, added
linked with the third ("political or- classifications are unlikely to serve materially to its solution. His concept
ganization") in a single criterion of any useful purpose and may, on the of the "cultunit" is another linguistic
social structure. The fifth ("ecological contrary, prove misleading. Never- monstrosity that does not clarify the
adjustment") is really an extraneous theless, Naroll insists correctly on a notion of society or ethnic unit; it
variable as irrelevant to the definition tightening up of the definition of appears at first glance to have been
as marital adjustment. In my defini- ethnic unit. emitted by a computer that had been
tion (Jaspan 1957), I suggested the The errors of earlier ethnographers fed a question having to do with
following criteria: who mistook for ethnic units such certain socio-religious entities. Naroll
moieties as Budi-Tjaniago and Koto- claims that his "new unit" is "propos-
1) Territorial contiguity or proximity
Piliang among the Minangkabau, and ed primarily as a conceptual norm
2) Language
social strata such as the Pubian and to aid anthropologists in their
3) Social structure Pepadon among the Lampong, have thinking, rather than an actual unit
4) Important elements of common folklore made the systematic classification of of study either in field work or in
and history
Indonesian ethnic units an unenviable comparative studies." Now all con-
5) Consciousness of a common identity, task (Jaspan 1959). Much avoidable cepts, particularly concepts of units or
however minimal or incipient (This is
confusion has arisen from the use of entities, are ideal types, but their
a cumulative product of the foregoing
such vague combinations as "peoples, usefulness would be limited indeed if
criteria.)
tribal groups, and tribes" (Kennedy the scientist did not attempt to use
With regard to the first of these, 1945). them as more than simple guides; after

298 CURRENT ANTHROPOLOGY

This content downloaded from 62.204.192.85 on Fri, 04 Aug 2017 13:39:37 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
all, Naroll assumes that his concept
does have a taxonomic function, and
in fact he addresses an "appeal to
anthropologists in the field to identify "the Chinese" be allocated in the four-
the cultunit or cultunits involved in
their study by collecting the relevant
linguistic, political, and geographical
data." Nevertheless, subsequently he
says, "Field description units often will "Chinese culture" speak many mutual-
not correspond to the cultunit." if
they do not, then one must question
even the normative function of such
a concept. Attempts to use the concept
will be even more confounded by
Naroll's assertion that "the cultunit
sometimes may be a genuine social
system but often will be only
theoretical-an analytical abstrac-
tion." No matter at what level of ab-
straction a concept is formulated, and
no matter to what degree the data in
specific cases deviate from the con-
ceptual norm, the user of the concept
should be able to identify the data as
members of the class or classes sub-
sumed by the concept. Various
organs and organ systems, for example,
are never identical in any two human
bodies (Williams 1958), but, no matter
what the degree of variance, the
physiologist or anatomist should have
no difficulty in recognizing a kidney,
stomach, or spleen.
In another commentary on Naroll's
paper, Murdock has indicated why his
classification now in progress of
cultural types (Ethnographic Atlas taxonomic description of a particular
1963) is preferable for providing an
appropriate universe from which to
draw samples for cross-cultural studies. my point of view he is producing
I am in agreement with the notion of tabulated nonsense. Naroll tells us that
"cultural types" and in general the
criteria used by Murdock for orderingstudy, a cross cultural survey, is "to
them. Perhaps we should distinguish
in the future between cross-cultural
and cross-societal studies. For the
former, we should be interested not sojective presupposes that "culture
much in the "culture-bearing unit,"
as in representatives of known cultural of further discrete entities which are
types. Cultural types would seem to
have some finite universe, whereas
culture-bearing units will vary in
number depending upon the selection
of classificatory criteria and the
purpose for which they are postulated.
By EDMUND LEACH*
Cambridge, England 15 I 64
The first part of Professor Naroll's
paper states the problem very clearly,
but I entirely fail to understand how
the cultunit device will solve anything.
I have previously argued that any
system of cross-cultural comparison
which can be so used as to make "the
Tikopia" and "the Chinese" units of
comparable type is self-evidently
absurd, and I do not see that the
absurdity is reduced by calling the
units "cultunits" instead of "tribes."
Naroll: ON ETHNIC UNIT CLASSIFICATION
Incidentally, where, I wonder, will is the major economic activity; in
1940, most Kachin communities were
fold cultunit schema (page 2E)? China small hamlets of three or four houses,
is a single state, but there are millions but a small minority were compact
of persons of "Chinese culture" who villages of over 100 houses; most
live outside that state. Persons of houses were occupied by "an entire
lineal family," but some houses
ly unintelligible languages, but contained 50 or more people, and in
educated Chinese can write one the days when (f) was true, the ma-
another intelligible letters even when jority of the population lived in such
they cannot converse in mutually in- "long houses;" while most couples
telligible speech. But this, we shall be reside patrilocally, the political struc-
told, is a very special case, and cul- ture is entirely dependent on the fact
tunits are only intended as "ideal that a significant proportion of house-
types." Alas, I fear that if anyone holds reside uxorilocally; statistically
tries to use this new concept to sort out speaking, marriage with a matrilateral
practical problems, nearly every in- cross-cousin is rare, though marriage
stance will turn out to be a very with a kinswoman of the category to
special case! which a matrilateral cross-cousin
My disagreement with Naroll is belongs is obligatory. It is not that
quite basic. Murdock's World Murdock's tabulators misread their
Ethnographic Sample and all work sources; it is simply that the ethnog-
that derives from it rest on the raphic facts of the case will not fit
fundamental assumption that the units tidily into tabulated categories. I
of discourse, call them "tribes," "cul- believe that this is true of all human
tures," "cultunits," or whatever, are societies.
"species objects" which can be I have written in the first person,
described taxonomically by a list of but I would suppose that most British
characteristics. Just as a species of social anthropologists would share my
beetle may be described. This is a views on this particular issue.
proposition which I simply do not
accept. If I write a monograph about
the Kachin (as I have done) and By OTTO VON MERING*
Murdock chooses (as he has done) to Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, U.S.A. 20 II 64
have that book treated as if it were a
Naroll wishes to help his fellow
cultural unit (Murdock 1957:680), he surveyors of the ways of man by
is acting within his rights, but from presenting them with the new con-
cept, "cultunit." Ail those who wish
to accept his offering are invited to
the object of a comparative statistical choose whether they will regard it as
an "ideal type," or a "conceptual
compare culture patterns in order to norm," or a "unit of comparative
see if there are general tendencies statistical analysis of a set of plans...
governing their construction." This ob- as they exist in the minds of culture
bearers," or a "standard of reference ...
patterns" are discrete entities composedto aid... in their thinking."
The infancy of any science is said to
capable of being tabulated by code be characterized by a search for
letters or numbers. I do not accept taxonomy, and this applies to anthro-
either of these suppositions, and it pology. However, the pressing issue is
seems to me that tabulations which that, unless you have a sense of
are made on this basis are bound to be problem, your taxonomy will do-
grossly misleading no matter how the minate your method, rather than help
units are defined. Let us take the you locate the real data.
Kachin as a case in point. Murdock In the course of Naroll's paper, the
(1957:680) tells us that (a) fishing is reader is treated to yet another
"absent, insignificant, or sporadic;" (b) taxonomy of culture. In this case, it is
Kachins live in compact villages or a fourfold one which even includes
towns; (c) there is "normal occupancy a Flathead cultunit. For good measure,
of a single dwelling by an entire lineal this is coupled with an "appeal to
(small extended) family;" (d) residence anthropologists in the field to identify
is "normally" patrilocal, with no the cultunit ... by collecting relevant
"patterned alternatives;" (e) matri- linguistic, political, and geographical
lateral cross-cousin marriage is "pre- data." Later in the text, however, the
ferred;" (f) the system includes reader comes upon the demurrer that
hereditary aristocrats and hereditary the cultunit is not really meant to be
slaves. Are these statements true or "an actual unit of study, either in
false? I suppose it all depends upon fieldwork or in comparative studies."
what you mean by "normality." I "The operational difficulties of
know of Kachin villages where fishing applying the linguistic criterion...

Vol. 5 - No. 4 * October 1964 299

This content downloaded from 62.204.192.85 on Fri, 04 Aug 2017 13:39:37 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 [to] whole societies or other units of
comparison" are discussed in extenso.
Despite his caveats, Naroll appears
willing to settle for his linguistic
boundary, "a group of people who are
domestic speakers of mutually in-
telligible dialects," as the construct
which is capable of forming a cultural
boundary.
At another point, we are told that
since "the cultunit concept is offered
as a tool for comparative statistical
studies" of sets of plans, it has been
made "as nearly uniform as possible."
Next, we are assured that it "generally
resembles fairly closely at least some
operating social unit within the
society," and is therefore capable of
solving sampling problems. Neither
these assertions, nor the claim that "it
is irrelevant how many people follow
a plan-whether a few hundred or
many million," will cause problems of
complexity and organization to dis-
appear.
I am puzzled by Naroll's divergent
assertions and pleas in his approach
to the difficult problem of finding a
meaningful and useful unit of culture.
His proposals are both exceedingly
elaborate and disconcerting.
It is possible, that, without realizing statistical sampling procedures. Yet
it, Naroll is actually advocating the
simple biological or atomistic family,
or some other man-made social institu-
tion, as the ideal or basic sampling
unit in cross-cultural study. To be
sure, this has the value of simplicity.
Though it may be as troublesome as
the cultunit to apply faithfully in
practice, it would at least remove the
obligation of classifying the Swiss as
"a state made up entirely of Tarascan
type cultunits."
It is reassuring that most anthro-
pologists still use as their unit of
definition and discourse "the socio-
cultural unit recognized by the natives
being studied." Restated, they study
people who do the calling, rather than
people who have been called some-
thing by others. Although Naroll avers
that "a number of inconveniences
would result from this," he appears
quite willing to live with them in his
study of the Austrian peasants of Un-
terhauser. Indeed, he does not even
mention the possibility that the
villagers might constitute a Tarascan
type cultunit.
Clearly, for a great many problems
and ways of living that the anthro-
pologist studies, neither cross-cultural
surveys nor the cultunit will be the
answer. The comparability of the
chosen units of comparison, and the
validity of the results will always
depend on the particular problem of
living that has been selected, and on
the fact the units have some intrinsic
meaning or relevance for the people
who make up those units.
A survey of stored information about analysis. In the third stage, the models
300
This content downloaded from 62.204.192.85 on Fri, 04 Aug 2017 13:39:37 UTC
diverse cultural solutions to a selected are tested in chemical laboratories.
problem has always been the prologue Now that anthropology has reached
to new and original field investigation. the second stage, applied anthropology
At this stage of the development of can supply the laboratory for this
anthropology as a science, it is doubt- third stage, by testing factors of
ful whether its practitioners would be change held constant in one region for
the richer for conducting the proper a limited period, against other factors
study of man on the basis of or change which are permitted to
the cultunit or a similar taxonomic operate in an equivalent region.
contrivance. Naroll has, however, Here the "cultunit" concept could
performed the service of directing the be helpful, if qualified demographical-
attention of his colleagues to a most ly; for instance:
perplexing theoretical and methodolo- Hamletcultunit.-limited toprimary
gical issue that deserves all the interest, group up to 100 persons.
talent, and experience that anthro- Village or camp cultunit.-100 to
pologists can bring to bear on it. 2,500 persons.
Town area cultunit.-2,500 to
10,000 persons who are stable residents
By SIMON D. MESSING* and incorporated.
Tampa, Florida, U.S.A. 30 I 64 City-state or provincial cultunit.
linguistic or territorial unit whose
There is indeed need for definition ofmembership exceeds that of the cul-
statistically usable units of culture- tunit.
bearing "wholes." But Naroll's pro-
posed "cultunit" lacks the demographic By FRANK W. MOORE*
dimension. How can it be irrelevant
whether "a few hundred or many New Haven, Connecticut, U.S.A. 8 II 64
millions follow 'the plan'"? The cul-
tunit would then be limited to the Naroll has presented a proposed solu-
humanities, to poetry and philosophy, tion to one of the most pressing and
and not usable in the construction of difficult problems facing not only
cross-cultural studies but the entire
quantitative surpluses over subsistence field of cultural anthropology. What-
needs have long been shown to be theever the merits or failures of his
basis for qualitative cultural develop- scheme, merely to call attention to this
ment (specialists, multiple institutions, problem is a worthwhile effort.
etc.). In recent years, populatioln ex- As Naroll points out, ethnographers
plosion has placed considerable strain have been remiss in not making a
on certain exotic institutions, and cul- serious effort to place their units of
tural particularism may be affected study into an overall context.
by the size of the group. Scientists in other fields who failed as
Suppose one is faced with the consistently as ethnographers to
problem of designing accurate and identify satisfactorily their units of
precise sampling of attitudes relating study would scarcely be allowed to
to health and sickness in an ethnically publish results. The problem, of course,
and ecologically diverse country of 20 is somewhat beyond the scope of the
million people. Suppose further that individual ethnographer. The entire
time and various logistics limit the field has been at fault for not sup-
research to four pairs of "study" and porting the effort to develop and use
"control" communities, plus pretest. an effective and flexible nomencla-
The practical problem is then to ture.
choose among the major cultunits in Naroll's survey of previous work ont
order to give meaningful representa- the subject indicates that language
tion to those groups and regions that mutual intelligibility is the most
are most significant in both numbers widely accepted single criterion for
and cultural considerations. isolating cultural units. Despite
Anthropological enterprise has Naroll's recognition of some of the
largely shifted from description of problems in applying the language
"unique," small, isolated groups, to criteria, he proceeds to use it as the
analytical, problem-oriented research basic trait in distinguishing his four
useful for cross-cultural comparison. types of culture units. Aside from
Perhaps anthropologists can learn the operational objections Naroll
from the sequence of events in medical 1nentions, there is the much more
research. When a new disease is en- serious objection of the lack of identity
countered, physicians gather case between language and culture areas.
histories and write wordy, descriptive Territorial contiguity is also a
reports. After a considerable amount somewhat tricky criterion to apply.
of data has been collected, operational What about groups such as the Miao,
models of the development of the who are dispersed over a wide area
disease and its relevant dimensions are with numerous intervening culture
designed. In this second stage, des- units, but who retain a very large
cription is replaced by less wordy measure of cultural homogeneity?
I am also disturbed by the omission
CURRENT ANTHROP O LO GY
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 of a hierarchical ordering of the Naroll: ON ETHNIC UNIT CLASSIFICATION
culture units for comparative purposes.
It seems to me that a system is 1957:viii). Without such precision in presenting various criteria (which
needed which will permit ready terminology, one may easily be led Naroll attempts to define, and which
identification of the precise culture astray or may lead others that way may be elaborated in the light of
units or portions of culture units (as is not uncommon in other fields of further research), and they are dis-
employed through a uniform nomen- social research; e.g., in referring to criminated among themselves in terms
clature, perhaps adapted from the one "village" as an entity in understanding of a panel of "cultural determinants,"
proposed by Murdock (1953). the rural society of India [Mukherjee the panel remaining unlimited in
To apply Naroll's scheme without 1961]). coverage, theoretically.
this preliminary first step of classifica-Naroll stresses the need to identify
tion by levels would be analogous to a the "skin of a culture," and he
By GEORGE P. MURDOCK*
botanist studying and comparing attempts a typology of the cultunit.
plants with red-colored flowers The analogy of "skin" from biology Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, U.S.A. 21 I 64
regardless of the content of his sample may not be particularly relevant in
in terms of families or isolated sub- the present context. For "cultures" are Naroll has addressed himself to an
varieties. not discrete entities; on the contrary, important issue, and much of what
Until a widely accepted and utilized however they may be looked at and he says is eminently sensible and
system of hierarchical ordering is whatever may be their specific pertinent. Nevertheless-and despite
available, it is doubtful that Naroll's determinants, their fields overlap. So, my complete accord with his ultimate
scheme can be entirely effective. if the probable density of a set of objectives-I find myself unable to
cultural determinants defines Ci and accept any of his concrete recom-
distinguishes it from Cj, a typology mendations.
By RAMKRISHNA MUKHERJEE*
of the cultunit, at this present hypo- The concept of "cultunit" is valid
Calcut#a, India 12 II 64 thetical stage of equating cultunit to and important, but the term itself is
Si in reference to Ci, may cut off, atan ambiguous barbarism. What it
Naroll wishes to initiate "a discussion its very beginnings, the rigorous connotes, if anything, is a component
of the problem of defining the 'tribe' development of ethnic unit classifica- congregation of a religious cult. Are
or 'society,' conceived of as the basic tion which Naroll has so seasonably there any serious objections to the
culture-bearing unit." That is, his initiated. For typological thinking of common practice of designating a
ultimate objective is to identify a set this nature may do more harm than culture-bearing unit as "a society"?
of people, Si, which represents a good, as has been pointed out by I emphatically reject the fourhold
distinct "cultural" situation = a set of Dobzhansky (1962), Garn (1962), and classification into Hopi, Flathead,
"culture" Ci. Following Naroll, (1) Si others. Aztec, and Tarascan' types. To inject
may be denoted as a "tribe," or any Naroll has raised a vital point about cultural content, such as the presence
one of its components Sij may be so cross-cultural surveys, when he asks or absence of a "state" or a "lingua
denoted; and (2) Ci may be composed how "sampling biases from in- franca," into the over-all definition
of Cil, C2, .-. ., Cii,... Ci. as "sub- consistent sampling units can be of a culture-bearing unit seems to me
cultures," while a "culture area" or statistically controlled, and the im- quite indefensible. Cross-cultural
"culture cluster" = Ci may be formed portance of diversity of societal type studies have demonstrated strong
of a conglomeration of Ci, Cj, Ck, and can be statistically assessed." He correlations between the occurrence
so on. asserts that this problem can be solved of states and other such cultural
But the method Naroll has adopted through the use of his concept of phenomena as complexity of social
does not distinguish Ci from Cj, and cultunit. But how is that possible, until stratification and degree of urbaniza-
on that basis differentiate Si cor- and unless it is established that the tion. If Naroll were to be taken
respondingly from Sj. Instead, Naroll cultunit presents the nature of varia- literally, however, any such study
examines six criteria which are tion specified for distinct sets of C and would be invalid because of the non-
assumed to define mutually distinct and thus does not lead to false dis- comparability of the units. For cross-
categories having concomitant rela- crimination in this respect? cultural comparisons to be possible,
tions with distinct sets of C. And, Naroll's enunciation of the problem any culture must be comparable with
purely on the basis of such an is important, and his formulation of any other, and this means that there
examination, he has formulated his cultunit may prove useful; but his can be only a single kind of "cultunit"
concept of the "cultunit" by taking deductions, interpretations, and in- -not four or any other number of
into account three of the six criteria ferences are a little premature. Cul- noncomparable types.
(one of only ancillary importance), tunit is proposed as a concomitant It seems to me that the only
after spelling out precisely what he variable in the perspective of the meaningful definition of a cultunit is
would like the attributes of each given relation between Si and Ci. social unit which carries a single total
criterion to be. Therefore, before elaborating this culture. Such a unit cannot be smaller
It follows from the above that, concept by means of its taxonomy than a single community, but it can

of such culture-bearing units, each

while cultunit would divide the field or its proclaimed powerto discriminate include several or many communities,
into mutually distinct groups of people in cross-cultural surveys, its validity provided the cultural differences be-
and thus could refer unequivocally to will have to be ascertained in the tween them are insufficient to yield
Si (and not either to Si or Sij), it willabove context. As has been pointed out appreciably different results in cross-
remain, all the same, an arbitrary and in the course of a discussion of racial cultural comparisons. Where a number
hypothetical concept in reference to classification (Garn 1962; Hiernaux
the relation between Si and Ci, until 1962), and as has been demonstrated with its "little tradition," share
cultunit is demonstrated from empirical in other fields of social research elements of a common "great tradi-
evidence to equate to Si. Hence, it may (Mukherjee and Bandyopadhyay 1964), tion" in consequence of economic
be more justified to label the concept, ethnic unit classification may require Interaction or political or religious in
for the purpose of C1, as "cultvariable," the application of statistical techniques tegration, such shared elements mu
meaning thereby "a varying quantity like Mahalanobis's D2, distance be- :f course, be counted as part of each
where the nature of the variation is tween clusters or groups: the groups rcultunit."
unspecified" (Kendall and Buckland are formed by precise attributes re- Naroll's purpose is "primarily to

Vol. 5 - No. 4 * October 1964 301

This content downloaded from 62.204.192.85 on Fri, 04 Aug 2017 13:39:37 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
solve sampling problems in cross-
cultural surveys." To him, the chief
problem is the definition of the
sampling unit, which to me seems
easily soluble. What is in my opinion
delimitation of the sampling universe,
the crucial problem, namely, the
delimitation of the sampling universe,
seems less important to Naroll. He
recommends that either my "World
Ethnographic Sample" or my "Out-
line of World Cultures" be used as the
sampling universe in cross-cultural
studies. I must reject this suggestion,
however flattering, for I am much too
acutely conscious of the serious
defectiveness of both my efforts
the point of view of establishing an
adequate stratification of the cultural
universe for sampling purposes.
In my opinion, as set forth elsewhere
(1963), the appropriate sampling
universe for cross-cultural research is
not a universe of cultures or cultunits
but a universe of "known cultural
types" which still remains to be
laboriously worked out. When it is
worked out, however, a random
sample can be drawn in which every
known cultural type in the world will
have an equal chance of being re-
presented. The particular cultures or
cultunits which will represent the typesEven current textbooks give con-
thus selected can then be drawn, eitherflicting conceptions. While Keesing
randomly or on the basis of the
adequacy of the ethnographic evidence,
using some of the devices which Naroll
has elsewhere proposed for solving
"Galton's problem" and preventing
plural representation of historically
contaminated cultunits.
By ARTUR HEHL NEIVA*
Rio de Janeiro, Brazil 31 I 64 living body, thus reducing the use-
Naroll's paper is important, first,
because after description, classification
is basic to scientific procedure; second, mathematics, is intrinsically vague
because clear-cut concepts, even at the(Russell 1948:162-63, 274-83), and
risk of increasing jargon, are
essential for any scientific analysis to
be worthwhile; third, because Naroll
is not afraid to tackle some of the
most awkward operational difficulties
encountered in fieldwork, such as
appropriate sampling; and last, be-
cause he may thus prepare for a
greater precision in handling cross-
cultural surveys, always vitally needed
when new insights into ethnological
problems are required.
How far has Naroll succeeded?
Although his well thought out scheme
is a step in the right direction, I want
to raise three objections.
The first concerns the philosophy of 17, 21) did for "tribe," declaring, after B.C. (8,900-9,200 new style)? Since
science. I have the impression that
Naroll ignored the formal rules of
fundamentum divisionis required in a
classificatory system (as stated in
detail in Stebbing 1961:30, 246-49,
433-39, 461-63; or in Cohen and
Nagel 1934:223-44; or more generally
in Benjamin 1937:121-22, 134-37),
thus incurring the criticism formulated we cannot uproot them from the lan-
by Kluckhohn (1960:135). Further-
more, I would prefer to call the
cultunit a "logical construct," and not those subtler shades of meaning they
an "ideal type" which has a definite
meaning in the philosophy of science
(see Watkins 1953). It is only fair to
say, however, that "ideal type," with
the connotation of opposable polarity,
has been widely though loosely used,
and is preferred by eminent sociologists (Cooper 1944) which, although much
(e.g., Parsons 1958:320, 321). But
good usage prefers "construct," even
in sociology (McKinney 1957:224-28).
from
This is not purely a matter of
semantics, since it has epistemological
implications (Nagel 1946:319, passim,
and references to Russell; also Benja-
min 1937:184-85).
The second point is more pragmatic.
It deals with the usefulness of Naroll's statistical methods but are unable to
proposed typology. Typological con-
stracts must be (a) useful (Murdock
1960:183; McKinney 1957:225) and
(b) able to explain (McKinney 1957:
225-27).
The cultunit, as carefully defined byever perfected, through simplifying
Naroll, is certainly an improvement
over the existing scandalous im-
precision of the meanings of "tribe."
(1958:290), Beals and Hoijers (1959:
502-3), and Honigmann (1959 :325)
stress its political aspect, Hoebel
(1958:661) does not think it is
"necessarily organized politically."
However, by abstracting the three
criteria of territorial contiguity, lan- cultunit in time," including the
guage, and political organization (as
was his privilege), Naroll may have
left only a skeleton in place of a
fulness of the concept. This loss
would have to be balanced against
the undoubted gains in precision and
that all of us are used to this some-
times extraordinary vagueness in
anthropology, even for basic concepts
such as "culture" (cf. Kroeber and
Kluckhohn 1952). When the situation
becames unmanageable, anthropologists
will suggest dropping a word al-
together, as the UNESCO statements
of 1950 and 1951 proposed for "race"
(cf. Montagu 1960:692-709; Barnicot
1963:117). Or they will consider it
"unfortunate as a scientific term," as
Radcliffe-Brown said of "culture"
(White 1954:462), or they will throw
up their hands in despair and try to
avoid it, as Steward and Faron (1959:
a rather good analysis, "the term tribe, the suggested taxonomic classes are
thus having no clear meaning, will be
generally avoided in this volume." But
we continue to use these words every-
where, sometimes compounding the
confusion (cf. Krader 1959 :168, on
how Soviet archaeologists use the
term plemya, "tribe"), not only because
guage, but also because, somehow, they
are useful for their connotations,
possess beyond their actual meaning
or denotation. For these reasons, I
doubt that such a precisely clarified
concept as the cultunit will have the
same usefulness as, say, Cooper's
typology of South American cultures
less precise than the cultunit, provided
a splendid basis for Steward's in-
valuable Handbook, as he himself un-
equivocally states (Steward 1946:4).
However, as a tool for compara-
tive statistical studies, the cultunit may
have a function, provided it is not
used only for extremes of minute
empirical studies which employ refined
reach a deeper understanding of
sociocultural phenomena. There are
certain qualitative aspects of socio-
culture life which cannot be analyzed
on a purely quantitative basis, how-
hypotheses or isolates introduced to
permit mathematical treatment. The
very loss of their complexity precludes
understanding them in full, and we
will only be able to see the trees for
the forest-if at all. Besides, qualita-
tive judgments can also be systematic
and rigorous (cf. Kluckhohn 1960:138-
39).
My last point relates to culture
history. I liked the section on "the
proposal on time notation, although
I believe that it will have only a
vanishingly small chance of being
accepted. I also enjoyed the periodiza-
tion of preliterate societies, although
Naroll's colonial period is somewhat
inapplicable in countries outside the
U.S.A., where the process of contact
and acculturation with aboriginals
followed different cources (well
summarized in Ribeiro 1957:44-48)
and extended far beyond the date of
the country's political independence,
which ended historically its colonial
period. This is the case in many
Latin American countries, e.g., Brazil,
where such tribes as the Xavantes were
only pacified after 1949, although this
process had begun much earlier (cf.
Alencastre 1864: passim, especially
320, 328-37).
But how does Naroll propose, for
instance, to classify within his
typology the Greek-speaking "tribes"
between the 11th and 8th centuries
non-exhaustive (see my remarks in the
first point above), these preliterate
Greeks, all speaking a common distinct
language, cannot be subsumed under
either the Aztec or the Tarascan types,

302 CURRENT ANTHROP O LOG Y

This content downloaded from 62.204.192.85 on Fri, 04 Aug 2017 13:39:37 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
but neither can they be included in Naroll: ON ETHNIC UNIT CLASSIFICATION
Hopi type-because they were not
stateless-nor in the Flathead type- sense, logically or empirically. Naroll Also, Naroll's statement: "Societies
for the belonged to several states, apparently thinks that the mere which keep written records (including
each governed by some petty basileus spatial or physical proximity of two of course societies taught to do so by
(cf. Starr 1962 :chaps. 1-4, especially groups leads to "symbolic communica- Europeans)" invites the inference that
61-63, 80-81, 111, 114-15, 120-35). tion" or at least to some diffusion of Europeans have been the only people
This instance suffices to show the in- objects or ideas. But any student of to have taught writing to preliterate
adequacy of Naroll's typology, which divergent cultures knows that a groups.
would encounter the same difficulties "kilometer" varies with a society's 4. The final issue concerns the
with other protohistoric or proto- cultural orientation and technological author's efforts to operationalize his
literate peoples of his palaeoethnog- development; nor can we ignore linguistic concepts. First, in the matter
raphic period. Even in his aboriginal "environment" as a limiting condition. of mutual intelligibility, Naroll's
period this would happen, e.g., with The impact of technology is particular- analysis rests solely upon the spoken
the Tupi-speaking peoples of Brazil as ly dramatic; even in the United States, language. He ignores, as do so many
described by the 16th century what constituted 200 kilometers two other American anthropologists, the
chroniclers and epistolarians (e.g., centuries ago is a very different thing written language. In China, peoples
Nobrega 1955; Anchieta 1933; Cartas for the actors involved than 200 speaking languages that are not
Avulsas 1931; Staden 1930), and kilometers today. Or, conversely, two mutually intelligible have for millen-
probably also with the Xerente and preliterate communities lying only a nia sustained extensive communication
Xavante dichotomy (Nimuendaju' few kilometers apart but separated by links via the written language. The
1942 :1-7). a high mountain range may have little Chinese case casts doubts upon
In short, while congratulating or no contact, whereas communities Naroll's very definition of cultunit-
Naroll on his endeavor, I think that separated by thousands of miles of the subject of his paper. For he defines
his suggested typology should be ocean may be closely linked by this as "people who are domestic
reformulated, first to adapt it better modern technological developments. speakers of a common distinct lan-
to the more exacting requirements of 2. Naroll asserts that what he is guage and who belong either to the
logic and philosophy of science, and presenting is an "ideal type." It is not same state or the same contact group.--
second, in consequence, to widen it so at all certain that he comprehends And recall that his definition of a
it can be applied to peoples and tribes what is meant by an "ideal type," at "distinct language" rests upon mutual
not presently encompassed by it, there- least as formulated by Weber, who intelligibility. Under these conditions,
by increasing its practical usefulness saw his "ideal type" as an exaggera- China does not qualify as a cultunit,
as a tool not only for cultural anthro- tion of reality, as a construct that the culture-bearing entity, which will
pology but also for other social does not appear in concrete form come as a surprise to scholars.
sciences. (Weber 1949). Often Naroll seems to Moreover, while Naroll admits the
be using a "constructed type" in presence of difficulties in determining
Becker's sense rather than an "ideal what is mutual intelligibility among
By GIDEON and
type" in the Weberian sense (Becker languages or "dialects" and also what
ANDREE F. SJOBERG*
1950). are cognates, he nevertheless proposes
Austin, Texas, U.S.A. 17 II 64 3. In Letter to Associates No. 20, an easy way out: ". . .consider as
the Editor of CA argued for the use 'recognizable cognates' only those
'ie problem Naroll has set for him- of "nonpartisan" language in the words which are reported to share at
self is exceedingly important for journal and, by implication at least, least one meaning in common and
scholars engaged in cross-cultural advised against "ethnocentrism" in which also have two-thirds of their
research. Although this is admittedly the language of contributors to the phonemes in common and in the same
a difficult area, we have serious journal, viz: cc... its English must order." The basis for his choice of the
reservations about the author's schema. transcend the biases of the nations figure "two-thirds" is not at all clear.
1. Throughout Naroll confuses dif- to which it is native." But isn't it just Apparently, for Naroll certain
ferent levels of analysis. On the one as important to avoid ethnocentrism numbers possess an almost "magical"
hand, he attempts to establish certain in conceptual categories? Naroll's quality.
analytical distinctions on a rather proposed classification is blatantly
abstract plane. On the other, he seeks Western and, more than this,
"Americanist." For he seeks to ca- By LEIGH M. TRIANDIS*
to provide "operational definitions" of
certain concepts. But he does not keep tegorize in American Indian terms- Urbana, Illinois, U.S.A. 31 XII 63
these levels distinct. Hopi, Aztec, Flathead, Tarascan-
Consider one illustration of the phenomena that are world-wide and in Naroll does not include a list of
author's confused reasoning. Naroll many cases far earlier in time than societies classified by his four types
defines a "contact link" as follows: Naroll's denominations indicate. cultunit, nor does the paper discuss
"Two nuclear families constitute a More disturbing still is the ethno- procedures for classifying groups that
contact link if their dwellings are not centrism that is built into his chronolo- fit some of the criteria of a cultunit
more than 200 airline kilometers apart gical types of cultunit: the palaeo- but not all of them. Surely such groups
at some time in their annual cycle." ethnographic, the aboriginal, and the will exist, and I am sure that anthro-
Though he seems unaware of the fact,colonial. This leads Naroll to mix pologists will not want to exclude
this is on a very different level of absolute time with relative time. The them from consideration. The feasi-
abstraction than his definitions of colonial type, which for him includes bility of the classification remains to be
"cultunit," "state," "distinct lan- those cultures described after 1492, is seen. I am a psychologist, and I have
guage," or even "contact group." In an especially troublesome one. Here, always found variables to be more
other words, Naroll does not define logically, Naroll would- have to useful than categories in the psy-
"contact link" in general, analytical exclude the colonial expansion of, chological
say, description of behavior, but
terms; instead he offers a crude the Chinese, Indian, or Arab empires- this may not be the case when one
operational definition of this concept. which spread widely and enfolded deals with groups.
Moreover, Naroll's operational defi- numerous preliterate groups, long My other comment is that the unit of
nition of "contact link" makes little before the discovery of the Americas. study depends upon the problem to be

Vol. 5 * No. 4 * October 1964 303

This content downloaded from 62.204.192.85 on Fri, 04 Aug 2017 13:39:37 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
investigated. Naroll's classification
will be very useful for many types of
problems, but no doubt he does not
intend it as the only sampling method.
By C. F. VOEGELIN*
Bloomington, Indiana, U.S.A. 6 II 641 this way, it would be almost impossible
When the successive terms of the
definition of the cultunit are indexed
by the addition of a parenthetic
number after each term, it is possible
to show that what is pivotal to the
cultish-seeming cultunit is language. Outliers). It would facilitate matters
"Cultunit.-People (1) who are the
domestic speakers (2) of a common
distinct language (3) and who belong
either to the same state (4) or the same encountered, whether the language
contact group (5)."
(1) In Naroll's context, "people"
contrast with "social insects," whose
societal behavior is genetically given
rather than learned, as culture is. But
in other contexts, for animals in
general and especially for primates, it
has been shown that some social
behavior is learned, and some sub-
human animals, especially when
domesticated, do learn from man. The
cut-off point seems to be where further domestic speakers, or (b) not in-
learning would require knowledge of
human language. People seem to have
a monopoly here; there may be a
genetic limitation (that precludes the
chimpanzee's learning human lan-
guage) as much as a genetic map that
matures as behavior without learning
or teaching.
(2) "Domestic Speakers.-People who
predominantly use a given dialect for
speech within the nuclear family, that
is, among husband and wife and their
minor children." In Indonesia today
there may be many families that
virtually lack "domestic speakers"-
and so also in Israel and other new
nations which have designated one
language to be a national language.
Though the national language is not
the native language of either parent, it barriers. Pathetically little knowledge
may be the native or first language
of the children. Thus, a friend from
Java spoke Bahasa Indonesian to both
his parents, who had at least a passive
knowledge of this national language,
which they were slowly learning as
their children grew up. The father
spoke Javanese as his native lan-
guage, and spoke Javanese at home
in the presence of his Javanese rela-
tives; the mother spoke Sundanese as
her native language, and was learning
Javanese as well as Bahasa Indonesian
while her children were growing up.
For the children, Bahasa Indonesian is
their mother-tongue, but not their
mother's mother-tongue. But one can
extrapolate to the next generation,
in which the parents will be bilingual,
as will the children, so that "domestic
speakers" will have two native lanl-
guages, and it will be important to
304
This content downloaded from 62.204.192.85 on Fri, 04 Aug 2017 13:39:37 UTC
distinguish between situations of
egalitarian bilingualism, and bil-
ingualism in which one language is the
prestige language and the other not.
(3). "Distinct Language.-All those
dialects mutually intelligible to
speakers of a stated dialect." Stated
to discuss distinct languages in ab-
original Australia, or in colonial
Polynesia today, or in other areas
where so-called "chain dialects" or
"dialect clusters" may be either neigh-
boring or distant (e.g., Polynesian
to discuss "chain dialects" or "dialect
clusters" in terms of language barriers, To what extent, and in what pattern-
and to inquire, whenever a barrier is
beyond the barrier can be learned in a
matter of days or weeks-or much
longer, as in the case of really different
languages.
(4) "State. A territorially ramified
territorial team whose leaders assert
and wield exclusive the right to
declare and conduct warfare."
Three types are distinguished,
according to whether the lingua franca
of the state is (a) the language of the
telligible with the language of the
domestic speakers; or (c) the simple
type in which no lingua franca is
needed because one language is shared
by all.
(5) "Contact Group.-People who
belong to no state but who speak a
common distinct language and who are
all interconnected by successive contact
links." Some Polynesian Outliers
provide examples of a contact group
without contact-who are not inter-
connected by successive contact links
and yet retain understanding of the
language of the place from which
their forebears emigrated.
As defined, culture units or cultunits
can be identified only with knowledge
of dialect distance and language
of this kind is in the books or in
research programs. Sometimes a little
knowledge (e.g., reliance on "re-
cognizable cognaties" of 80% or more
between two dialects to classify them
as mutually intelligible) is a dangerous
thing. It would be safer to ask speakers applicability of Naroll's methods,
of each of two dialects whether they
can understand the other. But even if
this ask-the-informant method is
generally reliable, it does not advance
our theoretical understanding of dialect differences in the value-weighted
distance or language barriers.
By LINVILL WATSON*
Easton, Pennsylvania, U.S.A. 18 II 64
While Naroll's closely-argued pre-
Sentation iS clear and cogent regarding
the overriding problem to which it is
explicitly addressed, namely the
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
operationalization of more rigorous
controls delimiting valid units for
statistical cross-cultural study as such,
it is also to be commended for in-
dicating provocatively the fuller con-
text of theoretical issues within which
his particular concern is imbedded.
For some purposes it is certainly a
question of no small moment, how
people categorize their own behavioral
system, for instance, whether, or not
they see it as emphatically unique in
plan, or only relatively so, within
certain or uncertain boundaries, which
may or may not be conceptually
emphasized and charged with value.
ed ways, does their shared plan for
existence take into account divergent
and contrasting plans, both con-
ceptually and in terms of differential
evaluations
The term "ethnocentrism" has long
been used by sociologists for invidious
awareness of either cultural difference
or social distinctness, both between
subgroups of one system and between
more fully distinct systems. Ethno-
centrism is, of course, a highly complex
phenomenon, which among other
things may be more or less explicit,
more or less intense, and may vary
considerably in the specificity or
comprehensiveness with which shib-
boleth functions are attached to cul-
tural features.
It has been very interestingly
brought out by Hans Wolff, for
adjoining Ijaw communities in the
Niger delta, how the interintelligibility
of dialects may become more problem-
atical where on one side people wish
to understand and be understood, but
on the other side a superiorly aloof
attitude prevails, so that one group
claims interintelligibility and the
other denies it (Wolff 1959). Pre-
sumably there is more here than
fudging or hypocrisy; rather it is a case
of cultural distinctness -being in fact
more real as an effective barrier, or
less so, as affected by the culturally
determined attiitudes of heightened or
muted ethnocentrism.
Though presumably in the vast
majority of ethnographic materials
such difficulties may not disturb the
those methods or comparable ones
should not obscure the considerable
residual non-comparability of social
(and related cultural) boundaries,
nature of which are nicely suggested
in his mention of the "nesting" of self-
identification frameworks for his
Tyroleans.
As anthropology comes more and
more to be concerned with interpreting
materials on the organizational level
of Naroll's linked Tarascan-and-Aztec
types (cf. the formula "national in
form, socialist in content" for
CURRENT ANTHROP OL OG Y
relating nationalities within the Soviet
Union, and roughly analogous com-
plexities and ambiguities of "pluralism"
elsewhere in the modern world), it
will be still more important to consider
in a sophisticated way how socio-
cultural units are compounded and
how boundaries change their mean-
ings.
By JOHN W. M. WHITING*
Cambridge, Massachusetts, U.S.A. 19 II 64 borders it resides. Minimally a tribe
The great increase in the frequency
of world sample comparative studies
during the last 15 years makes Profes-
sor Naroll's stimulating paper most
timely. I do not, however, agree that
there is any one "ideal type" of unit,
but rather feel that its definition
should depend upon the problem being
investigated. Thus, a comparative in-
vestigation of a problem in human
biology or genetics should consider a
set of breeding populations or
endogamous groups as the appropriate
universe; while for problems in lin-
guistics, speech communities comprise
the appropriate universe. For problems
of environmental adaptation, the in-
habitants of ecological regions-e.g.,
desert peoples, tropical rainforest
peoples-might provide the best
sample.
Even if the problem is cultural, I
do not feel that a single definition
such as that offered for the cultunit isconsidered an ethnic minority rather
appropriate for all problems. As will
be discussed below, nations or states
might be more appropriate for the
study of problems involving political
variables, whereas local communities
may be the more appropriate unit for
the study of kinship or child-rearing.
Naroll's types were not, as I under-
stand them, designed to be used for
different purposes. They seem to be
based on empirical rather than theo-
retical considerations.
For problems which involve relating
one aspect of culture with another-
such as relating child-rearing practices
with projective systems-the unit must hood of scattered homesteads, a hamlet,
both be organized and have the
members in communication with one
another. This suggests that the group
have a common territory, speak a
mutually intelligible language, and
have some degree of sovereignty. This
last requirement follows from the
assumption that a social unit must be
organized. The extreme diffusionist
"shreds and patches" view of culture
would not require sovereignty as a
criterion. I would object on these
generally corresponds to Naroll's
Tarascan type. A tribe, as I would like
to define it, is at present always sub-
ject to a sovereign nation, operational- standard ethnographic techniques is, in
ly defined as being a member of the
United Nations or as having applied
to the United Nations for member-
ship. Thus, it does not have complete
autonomy and must obey at least some
of the laws of the nation within whose
does not have the right to declare war.
However, to be a tribe, some degree
of sovereignty is required. I would
follow Murdock's modification of
Swanson's definition (Murdock 1962).
Sovereignty is characterized by
"original and definitive jurisdiction
over some sphere of social life in
which the organization (tribe) has the
legitimate right to make decisions
having a significant effect on its
members; e.g., distribution of food,
allocation of productive resources,
punishment of delicts, assignment or
conscription of labor, levying of taxes, obtaining a description which will
initiation of war and peace." No
tribe subject to a nation has complete
sovereignty, but a tribe must have
some degree of sovereignty. It has, as
suggested above, relinquished the right
to initiate war and peace, and it may
have relinquished other rights as well.
How much sovereignty can be relin-
quished before the unit should be
than a tribe is an important considera- for the purpose of obtaining ethnog-
tion that must, again, depend upon the raphic information Furthermore, the
problem being considered. The Hopi of
New Oraibi are generally classed as a
tribe, whereas the Chinese Americans,
even when they are living in a ghetto
and speak little English, are more
often referred to as an ethnic minority.
For certain problems, a unit with
even less sovereignty may be required.
In an intensive study of family life,
the local community is, as I have
argued elsewhere (Whiting 1954), the
appropriate sampling unit. Such a unit
may be a nomadic band, a neighbor-
or a barrio or ward of a town or
city. Some degree of sovereignty
should also be a required attribute of
the community. Thus, the members of
such a group feel that there are certain cellent example of this method.
matters that are their concern and no
else's and that decisions with regard to
such matters binding on the members
of the group.
While Naroll admits that the local
community "is clearly a good idea in
certain kinds of comparative study,"
Naroll: ON ETHNIC UNIT CLASSIFICATION
vehtory of local communities." This
stricture does not take account that
the unit most intensively studied by
fact, a community rather than a larger
unit. The anthropologist in the field
typically pitches his tent in a hamlet
or village or wanders with a band.
Although he will ordinarily get some
material from other communities of
the tribe by visiting some of them
during the course of his investigation,
the detailed workings of the social
life is documented from observations
on the community in which he lives.
Here, after having taken a census,
made a map, and taken geneologies of
all the families, he participates in the
intimate details of daily life in a
manner vividly described by Ma-
linowski in the introduction to
Argonauts of the Western Pacific
(1922). The method is also described
in Whiting & Whiting (1960). Such
techniques are clearly not suited for
appropriately represent the culture of
nations or even of large tribes. Here
one must either depend upon materials
collected by censuses and surveys
carried out by the local government,
the collation of results from com-
munity studies, opinion polls con-
ducted by others, or one must engage
in an immense data gathering enter-
prise that is seldom if ever undertaken
type of material gained from national
censuses and opinion polls is of quite
a different order from that gained
from participant observation in a
community.
When studies of a larger scope than
the local community are undertaken
by anthropologists, their usual techni-
que is to sample communities from a
tribe or language group rather than
attempting to sample individuals.
Traditional ethnographic techniques
can thus be employed. If a sufficient
sample of communities is obtained,
it may be said to represent the larger
group. The cooperative research being
carried on by Romney, Vogt, and
others in Chiapas, Mexico, is an ex-
As a consequence of the use of the
field methods described above, the
great majority of ethnographies that
purport to describe the culture of a
tribe, and are so listed, might also
be said to describe the culture of a
community within that tribe. The

-ni etelpmoc a ekil yleugav gnihtyna

grounds to including the stateless
Hopi type along with the sovereign
Flathead and Aztec types, and the
dependent Tarascan type
The most commonly used unit in
recent cross-cultural studies is what is
commonly called a tribe. This unit
he claims that "in a cross-cultural nature and name of the community
survey, which seeks a random or or communities intensively studied are
stratified random sample, it is opera- generallv described in the ethnogra-
tionally worthless. It is hard eniough phy. Thus, a search of the ethno-
to get something resembling a complete graphic literature on tribal units
list of societies, but impossible to get would provide a list of communities.
If one and only one community were

Vol. 5 * No. 4 * October 1964 305

This content downloaded from 62.204.192.85 on Fri, 04 Aug 2017 13:39:37 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 taken as a unit from each listed tribe
or nation, they would provide a
reasonable list from which to draw a
sample, and would, I believe, meet
Naroll's objection to the community
as a unit.
This leads me to one further com-
ment. Naroll suggests that for "a
moderate budget survey" an appro-
priate sampling unit might be the
Outline of World Cultures. If this
listing were taken literally, it might
yield a quite curious sample. The first
"culture" listed is the world. Then
we have Asia, Korea, North Korea,
and Quelpart (Specific data on...
Quelpart Island and its inhabitants).
Each of these groups includes the one
following it, and thus each unit is at
a different level of abstraction. Since
this procedure is followed throughout
the Outline, it is clearly inappropriate
for any sampling list. The outline
could, however, form a basis for
compiling a number of lists each of
which would be appropriate for
different problems. As we have sug-
gested, a list of nations, of tribes, and
possibly of language groups could
easily be drawn. The task of listing
communities is more difficult and
would require a search of the
ethnographic literature, but it is
clearly possible.
In sum, there is no single unit that
is appropriate for all purposes;
sovereignty should be an important
consideration in unit definitions when
problems of cultural integration are
being considered; the local community
is a viable unit especially suited to
comparative research utilizing existing
ethnographic material; and both
degree of sovereignty and level of ab-
straction should be taken into
account in listing the sampling
universe. Finally, I hope that Naroll's
paper results in the compilation of
sampling lists that are more suitable
for problems in cross cultural research
than any now existing.

validation. They constitute a type of

stratification. They purport to group of other important traits; neither are
Reply
together similar tribes. If in fact they political organizations, endogamy
do, sampling is improved. groups, or largest meaningful social
By RAOUL NAROLL If they do
not, no harm is done. But as a formal unit. Going beyond these North
Many Murdock's
taxonomy, of these comments
culture type point
is up key American trait distribution studies,
issues.
still in Dole, Fuchs,
the proposal stage. Jaspan,
He has no Leach, looking at what is known of the
Moore, the
yet published Mukherjee,
taxonomic and
data Whiting
on a dis- histories of such tribal groups as the
singlecuss
type.theHis fundamental nature of the
proposal (Murdock Iroquois, the West Greenland Eskimos,
1963: culture-bearing
249-53) names 41unit. types, Berndt,
listing Chapple, the Nguni-speaking peoples, and the
Ducey,
for each typeFuchs,
by name Moore, Mukherjee,
the tribe or and Nahua-speaking peoples, I think it
tribesMurdock
included.propose alternate
He proposes general
(p. 251) safe to say that culture-bearing units
approaches
to publish in the to its definition.
future "tabulationsChapple, are also not congruent with respect to
Ember, Hoffman,
of ethnographic data" asLeach, and Watson
an "attempt chronological position and duration or
consider
to indicate the the difficulty
evidence on which of validation.
our pattern of genesis and development.
Hoffman,
classification Neiva,
of known and the
culture types Sjobergs
is Culture-bearing units are not species-
based."raise
I hopequestions
that byaboutthis he the logic of the objects; in Leach's phrase, a cultunit
means
cultunit
something more definition
than mereand the resultant
tabulations specifies a particular culture-bearing
taxonomy.
of general data of theBerndt,
sort he Bessach,
has beenDucey, group and not a category of such
Jaspan,
publishing Mering,
in his and Messing
Ethnographic Atlas.argue in groups as a zoological species design-
Such favor of using
tabulations, other particular
however useful as criteria ates a category of animals. If neat
than mine. Driver and
reference compilations, are inadequate Leach question congruencies between groups of traits
the validity
as evidence in support of ofthe cross-cultural
a taxonomy. were invariable, the problem of unit
surveyhis
To validate method
taxonomyas a whole;
Murdock Ember, definition would be easy to solve, and
needsMurdock,
to state for andeach
Whiting
genustake (e.g.,issue on there would be no need for such a
Southparticular
African Bantu) elementswhatoftrait(s)
it. There
it are discussion as this. Any particular
has inalso many which
common objections to matters of
differentiate world-wide definition of the culture-
it fromincidental detail, especially
the remainder of mankind, the choice bearing unit is sure to be arbitrary,
of particular
and again words
for each species as names
(e.g., Ngoni for to follow some boundaries and hence
type) concepts
to state what ("cultunit,"
traits it"Hopi"
has in type to ignore others. Consequently, there
common etc.)which
and the selection it
differentiate offrom
arbitrary cannot by any particular trait or trait
cutting points
the remainder of each(1492;
genus.the This200sortkilometer group which will be universally suit-
rule). able. But remember Goodenough's
of taxonomy will be most valuable not
only as a sampling list butt also as a rule: what we do as ethnographers is,
Fundamental Nature of the and must be kept, independent of what
general contribution
Culture to knowledge.
Bearing Unit
But please note that none of this we do as comparative ethnologists.
solvesMost
the of thedefinition
unit questions about the funda-
problem in To vary the unit definition to suit
mental nature of the culture-bearing
cross-cultural surveys. It simply sub- the problem being studied is a sensible
unit can be answered by a careful
stitutes a classified list of "societies" practice wherever it is feasible. But the
study of the North-American data, asfeasibility is not merely a matter of
for an unclassified one. It does not tell
compiled and mapped in 2 impressive devising theoretically suitable cate-
us in any rigorous way what a society
studies: (1) the voluminous California gories; it depends upon the ability of
is. Nor does it tell us what a "culture
type"trait element definition
is. Murdock's distribution
of a studies, the investigator, with the resources
whose theoretical results are sum- at his disposal, to apply those
culture type (p. 249) does not meet
marized
Chapple's in Kroeber
operational (1936); of
criterion and (2) categories in practice.
the continent-wide surveys of Driver
validity. It is vague and equivocal.
and Massey (1957) and Driver (1961).
No rigorous definition of a culture
General Approaches
These studies show that the
type is required in order to construct
culture- I have some questions about the
bearing unit is a complex phenomenon general approaches suggested by
a valid taxonomy; but such a defini-
rather than a simple one, that units are several commentators. Murdock's cul-
tion is required in order to make
not congruent with regard to quality, ture type approach is attractive,
rigorous inferences about a universe
quantity, or spatial extension. They especially as a sampling device.
from a sample taken from a list of
show that language groupings are Viewed as a sampling device, his cul-
alleged types. If the particular culture
often not congruent with distributions ture type groupings require no formal
CURRENT ANTHROPOLOGY
306

This content downloaded from 62.204.192.85 on Fri, 04 Aug 2017 13:39:37 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
being grouped is defined as a cultunit,
this unit definition problem is solved.
Leach has questioned whether any
single culture-much less a culture
type-can be characterized by par-
ticular traits found universally through- for a study of aboriginal Northwest
out the culture but nowhere outside
it. My cultunit concept does not
require any homogeneity of culture
with respect to any traits other than
those used in the definition itself.
Murdock's culture type classification
does require homogeneity with respect
to the as yet unidentified characteristic the widest relevant social unit.
traits of each type. As an operational
policy, Murdock might be well
advised to stick to criteria whose
distribution is readily identifiable by
unskilled ethnographers because it is
readily seen by run-of-the-mine in-
formants. Cousin terminology or
residence rules, for example, would
not be operationally suitable because
informants are often unaware of
variations in such patterns wi thin a
society. Since fieldworkers rarely have
validated their descriptions of whole
cultures by systematic sampling
methods, most ethnographies are
indeed, as Whiting points out, des-
criptions of a culture as it is seen
by informants of a single community.
I agree with those like Moore and
Ducey, who follow Murdock (1953:
478) in seeking to distinguish a hier-
archy of culture bearing units.
Although the task is beyond the one I
have set myself here, ultimate solution
of the problem must certainly
encompass such a hierarchy.
Perhaps the final solution will in-
volve a cultunit concept along the
lines favored by Bessac, Jaspan, or me,
used in combination with the culture
type concept favored by Murdock,
Whiting, and Landy. By setting up
units like the cultunits with clear
boundaries, one can then define the
characteristic traits of the species in
terms of predominance rather than of
universality, thus producing a species
differenit in character from that used
in zoology-a difference reflecting the
difference between cultural and biolog- showed that the traits he studied
ical evolution.
Chapple's suggestion that we seek to
measure frequency of relationships
sounds promising in theory but dif-
ficult in practice. He does not say
whether we must wait for new field-
work to be done all around the world
or whether we can use this approach
on the data in existing ethnographic
literature. He does not offer any
concrete suggestions on how these
measurements are to be made either by
fieldworkers or by comparativists in
the library.
Berndt's suggestion that we seek the
widest relevant social unit seems to
me sound advice for fieldworkers but
a poor basis for a unit of comparison
in cross-cultural surveys. Such units
Vol. 5 * No. 4 * October 1964
This content downloaded from 62.204.192.85 on Fri, 04 Aug 2017 13:39:37 UTC
Naroll: ON ETHNIC UNIT CLASSIFICATION
are often very large, I think. Would
not the entire Northwest Coast con-
stitute the widest relevant social unit
Coast tribes? Were not all these tribes
linked in important trading, slaving,
and military networks? The relation-
ship between traditional enemies is a
social relationship of great importance,
and no unit which excludes such a
relationship could be properly called
Jaspan suggests we use 5 criteria,
taking any 4 as a unit definition. I
am not sure this would produce
mutually exclusive categories; and it
would certainly add to the labor of
applying the unit definition concept.
Otherwise, theoretically, it too seems
a sound approach.
Mukherjee calls for us to identify a that the definition proposed actually
culture trait or group of traits whose
mapped distributions would yield
sampling units. My approach has been
rather to identify communication
units, assuming that, since culture is
constantly changing, these uniits will
tend to be culturally distinct. Recent
work on Galton's problem (Naroll
1961a; Naroll and D'Andrade 1963;
Naroll 1964) offers protection against
failures of this assumption in correla-
tional inferences from cross-cultural
surveys. However, I would like to see
someone try the statistical approach
Mukherjee suggests on panels of data
taken, say, from the California trait
element distribution studies.
Zipf's "Law" of Equilibrium seems
worth looking into. But I have 2
reservations. First, the kind of data
freely available to Zipf for his studies
is not always available to cross-cul-
tural comparativists in the library;
hence in practice Fuchs is talking more
to fieldworkers than to comparativists.Logic
We do not often have collections of
texts from successive communities
along a linguistic chain, for example.
Second, Zipf's demonstration did not
establish what he claimed-it only
followed a certain stochastic distribu-
tion model, in which the probability of should indeed distinguish theoretical
a further increment is related to the
magnitude of the unit to be in-
cremented (see Simon 1955).
The Validation Problem
Triandis puts her finger on this
problem when she calls attention to
my failure to include a list of tribes
classified by my system. This omission
was no oversight but rather a
reluctance to publish at this time my
data on the 30 tribes of my 1956
sample because I still was not satisfied
with it after extensive investigations, contact group. Thus, by a semantic
some of whose results were reported in
my discussion of linguistic problems. I
do plan to publish a detailed discussion
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
of the cultunit definition data on
58 society War, Stress, and Culture
probability sample.
My dissatisfaction with Ember's
definition, as with the earlier general
definitions of Murdock, arises from his
failure to offer any evidence that he
tried to apply it in practice. Ember's
definition involves distinguishing one
language or lingua franca from
another. Yet he does not tell us what
he means by a "different language."
That is why I do not consider his
definition a rigorous one. His claim
of rigor for it is evidence that he did
not check the linguistic data on his
sample to see if his societies did, in
fact, differ from their neighbors in lan-
guage. In short, he seems unaware of
the problem of validation, of showing
applies to the units which are claimed
to conform to it.
Chapple's criterion of validation is
splendid. Indeed we must "come up
with unequivocal operations which do
not involve a penumbra of uncertain-
ty." The rival approaches discussed
here need, first of all, to be validated
by showing in practice their ap-
plicability to the data at hand "with
unequivocal operations which do not
involve a penumbra of uncertainty."
I have designed the cultunit with
precisely this criterion in mind; but
my colleagues must, of course, with-
hold their judgment on this crucial
point until I publish the data on a
sample. They are likely to regard the
validation problem of other unit
concepts with equal reserve, until
their proponents publish the relevant
data on a sample. The proof of the
pudding is in the eating.
The new criterion of comparability
proposed by Hoffmann and the old
criteria of classification referred to by
Neiva both seem unimportant to me.
On the other hand, the objection to
confusing levels of abstraction raised
by the Sjobergs is well taken. We
concepts from operational indicators,
as I failed to do.
Hoffmann's criterion of com-
parability requires that our categorie
form conjunctive rather than dis-
junctive sets. His objection would be
satisfied if I redefined a cultunit as a
group of people who speak a common
distinct language and who belong to
the same communication group. I
would ithen define a communication
group as a group of people who belong
to the same state or to the same
trick, I would move the disjunction
out of the definition of the set itself
into the definition of one of the set's
307
criteria. The trivial nature of this
change illustrates the unimportance of
the logical goal achieved. If I were
to make this change, I would achieve
comparability by Hoffmann's rule, as
he predicted I could, but people who
were concerned before about com-
paring Yaghans and English would be
concerned still.
Similarly, it is quite true that my
classification ignored the medieval
logician's canon of fundamentum
divisionis, according to which all
species of a particular genus are to be
distinguished by the same "basis of
division" or fundamental criterion.
This rule is not heeded by biological
taxonomists, and Neiva offers no
evidence or argument in favor of it,
but only the authority of Clyde
Kluckhohn. I could reply that Cohen
and Nagel (1934:242) advise against
it. Like Hoffmann's rule, it is funda-
mentally trivial, because a classifica-
tion which fails to conform to it can
easily rearranged into a more cumber-
some, less elegant one which does. All
I would need to do is add 2 additional
non-working categories to my system
and proceed by dichotomies. Thus I
could divide cultunits into those with-
out states (Hopi type) and those
within states; then I could subdivide
those within states into those within
linguistically homogeneous states (Flat-
head type) and those within lin-
guistically heterogeneous states; final-
ly, I could subdivide those within lin-
guistically heterogeneous states into
those politically dominant (Aztec
type) and those not politically
dominant (Tarascan type). What has
been gained by all this logical ap-
paratus?
However, I would agree with Cohen
and Nagel that, where a manifold
empirical classification turns out on
deeper examination and further
research to have a fundamentum di-
visionis which its authors did not
perceive, such a finding suggests that
the field of stucdy in question is
scientifically maturing. The periodic
table of chemical elements is a fine
example. Thus it would be impressive
indeed if, by fieldwork, it were
demonstrated that alike in a Hopi
type, a Flathead type, a Tarascan type
and an Aztec type cultunit, the cul-
tunit boundary is, in fact, the major
boundary of interaction frequency.
While I do not consider either of
the foregoing changes in my system
useful, I do think changes are needed
to remove its confusion of theoretical
and operational concepts, as the
Sjobergs wisely say. Let me now
redefine 3 of the basic concepts:
distinct language, contact link and
time period.
Distinct Language.-In homogeneous
languages, the languages itself. In
languages chains, the chain link.
308
This content downloaded from 62.204.192.85 on Fri, 04 Aug 2017 13:39:37 UTC
Homogeneous Language.-A set of
dialects the speakers of any one of
which can understand all the others,
but none of which is intelligible as
such to speakers of any dialect of any
other set.
Language Chain.-A set of dialects
which are arrangeable in sequences
such that, while each dialect in the
sequence is intertelligible with the
preceding and the following dialect,
and all such intertelligible neighbors
are included, some dialects in the set
are not intertelligible with others in
the set.
(N.B. What I have here called a
"language chain," following Voegelin,
is nothing else but what I earlier
called a "linguistic continuum,"
following Bloomfield. Notice that
"Homogeneous Language" and "Lan-
guage Chain" are mutually exclusive
and collectively exhaustive categories.
Everv dialect must belong to one or
be the other of these; none can belong
to both.)
Chain Link.-One of a set of
divisions of a language chain made in
such a way as to produce the smallest
possible number of divisions each
containing only intertelligible dialects to construct enough parallel word lists
and, wherever consistent with the
foregoing requirement, dividing neigh-
boring dialects with maximum dif-
ferences. (In other words, one seeks
boundaries which separate compara-
tively dissimilar dialects wherever
alternate division plans present them-
selves. This proposal assumes that lan-
guages chain or dialect continuums
do not procede by exactly equal alter-
nations in dialect from community to
community, but rather that the
amount of the difference varies con-
siderably. I understand that the dialect leading because of the effects of
maps of Germanic and Romance
peasant dialects do reveal such
variations.)
ContactLink.-Two nuclear families
constitute a contact link if every year
one of the members of each speaks
directly to one of the members of the
other.
Ethnographic Time Period.-That
period of time in which the cultunit
type remains constant.
Having modified the foregoing con-
cepts to eliminate purely operational
criteria, let me now discuss their use
in practice. To divide a language
chain into chain links, one needs
detailed dialect data. With the data
now in libraries, it can be done
thoroughly for rather few language
chains. Many dialect groups like
Timbira and Central Caroline can be
so classified if one uses a frequency
definition of intelligibility, rather
than an informant's statement. In
support of my proposal for the 80%
rule of "similar cognates," a rule
derived from the results of the Biggs
study of Yuman languages, let me
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
now cite the corroboration of this
rule in the study of the reconstruction
of printed English by Chapanis (1954).
Accordingly I suggest that we also call
2 words "similar cognates"-regardless
of their linguistic histories-if 80% of
their phonemes are reportedly iden-
tical and in identical order, and if
they share one meaning in common.
Glottochronological data is irrelevant
here, for it considers all cognates, how-
ever dissimilar phonetically. Thus
English- "through" and German
"durch" are obvious cognates, yet
phonetically entirely unlike. The 80%
rule would rule out even English
"hand" and German Hand, but would
accept English "tobacco," German
"tabak."
In cross-cultural surveys, it would
be necessary in practice to concern
oneself with chain link classification
only where it appeared that neigh-
boring links were each represented by
bodies of ethnographic literature
meeting the bibliographic criteria of
the sample in question and not
separated by state boundaries. For such
chain links, the comparativist can
reasonably expect to find or to be able
to permit him to make a chain link
classification.
I defend the 200 km. rule as a
practical operational criterion for
identifying contact links. In the
absence of other data, I would assume
that families within such a distance
were contact links, those further apart,
not. Since the contact link comes into
use only in Hopi type cultunits-
those independent of any state,
whether native or colonial-it is un-
likely that this rule will often be mis-
modern communication technology. It
migh,t help a little, however, to distin-
guish water gaps, flatland gaps, and
mountain gaps, providing different
rules for each. I have not done so
because all the instances I know of
in which this rule needs to be used
are those involving native travel in
pre-European boats across the open
sea.
The periodization rule now proposed
calls for us to distinguish for example,
pre-colonial, colonial and post-colonial
periods, if the people belong to a
Hopi, Flathead, or Aztec type cultunit
before and after colonial conquest.
It also calls for us to distinguish
changes in cultunit type in the forma-
tion of a native state, for example,
when the Zulu state organized a
Flathead type unit from the undif-
ferentiated 18th-century Nguni, who
were then all members of a Hopi
type cultunit. (The concept of
palaeoethnography belongs to still
another level of abstraction; it is a
classification of ethnographic writings,
not of peoples being described, and it
CURRENT ANTHROPOLOGY
has its place in a sampling protocol Naroll: ON ETHNIC UNIT CLASSIFICATION
rather than in a unit definiition
taxonomy.) produces additional taxonomic cate- suggest that, in any cross-cultural
Particular Definitional Criteria gories, as Bessac made clear. survey, the comparativist note the
Ducey proposes that we also classify cultunit boundaries associated with
However important marriage ex-
according to level of complexity. A each unit in his sample. If he can use
change patterns may be in defining
step in this direction would be to a sampling list made up of cultunits,
ethnic units in Australia and New
distinguish between Hopi type societies so much ithe better. Thus the com-
Guinea, they are not, I think, general-
with politically organized settlement parativist can, by a distinct calcula-
ly so outside these regions. Variations
(bands, villages) and those without. tion, see whether, in the unit of
in such patterns ought to be considered
Naroll (1956), Freeman (1957), and references of the ethnographers he
as a variable in the research design
Carneiro and Tobias (1963) offer studies, variations from the cultunit
whenever its relevance to the problem
indices or scales of level of coni- standard affect his correlations or not.
at hand is suspected.
plexity. As will be shown in a forth- In other words, I propose that we
Native name is, however, a common
coming paper by Naroll and Tatje, strive to order all data by cultunits
and widespread, if bv no means
these indices and scales are highly for purposes of cross-cultural survey
universal ethnic unit definition cri-
correlated with each other, though comparisons. (This is not to deny the
terion. Bessac's proposal thus has
they use different measuring devices; value of other sorts of comparisons,
strong attraction, especially since the
hence, it seems clear that they are all which may well make use of other
reference group of a native name is so
tapping the same underlying factor- sorts of units.) To comparativists, then,
often very easily identified. Bessac's
precisely the factor which Ducey I suggest that you arrange your data
proposal is to subclassify my Hopi
wishes to consider. Any of them can by cultunits as nearly as you can and
type into those who have a name for
be used to classify or measure this take note of discrepancies which you
themselves (Bessac's Hopi type) and
factor. It is not necessary to classify cannot avoid.
those who do not (Yuki itype); and
by level of complexity in order to My proposal to fieldworkers is
to subclassify my Flathead type into
control for it. One can use any of different. I suggest that they determi
groups of linguistically homogeneous
these measures in a multiple factor their unit of study, of data collection,
states who have a common name for
analysis or partial correlation to see with primary regard to local cultural
theselves, presumably the same as their
conditions. Fieldworkers in parts of
own name for their language (Mongol whether relationships between other
traits being studied merely reflect Australia or New Guinea, for example,
type), and those in which language
covariation in level of complexity. might well need to pay greatest heed
and state boundaries are coterminous
Use of gross population as a to marriage exchange grouping. How-
(Mohave type). Finally, as to lin-
taxonomic criterion is easy enough. ever, I urge them to ascertain and
guistically heterogeneous states, Bessac
But since it is equally easy to use report the cultunit boundaries involved
retains my Aztec type, but he sub-
cultunit population as a control in their study, (i.e., the linguistic
stitutes for my Tarascan type his
factor, and since gross population is boundaries and the state or contact
Kazak type in which peoples speaking
probably important chiefly as it affects group boundaries) so that their reports
a distinct language and having a name
societal complexity through the in- may be accurately classified by coni-
for themselves are lumped together
parativists.
regardless of state boundaries. Bessac's tervening variable of settlement size,
I see no particular point in classifying As an ethnographic classification,
approach is promising, but it needs
by it. intended to serve for data on all the
some more work. At present, it is not
people, not merely on elites, the cul-
an exhaustive classification. What about In my cultunit taxonomy, I classified
only by those traits which were tunit is defined in terms of spoken lan-
2 linguistically heterogeneous states
necessary to provide an operational guage, not written language. Con-
having mutually intelligible lingua
unit definition. These traits were sequently, the Chinese written lan-
francas? The English-speaking peoples
guage, which used to be as widely
know themselves collectively as Anglo-selected for their relationship to geo-
understood in Korea and Viet Nam
Saxons, but they operate a number of graphical variations in culture, not for
their general importance. They are all as in China (and quite widely under-
linguistically heterogeneous states.
3 aspects or elements of communication stood in Japan as well), plays no part
Jaspan's suggestion that we consider
in the classification of the Chinese
also "important elements of common systems. If human beings formed
small, discrete isolated communication people. The Chinese Peoples Republic
folklore and history" poses a problem.
systems, those would be the units I of today is a single state, as far as I
It is clear that "ex-cultunit" groups
know. Within its mainland boundaries,
often continue to constitute ethnic units would prefer to sample. Since they do
not, I offer the cultunit as an ap- control of conduct of warfare is
of importance in the eyes of culture
proximation, and I claim for it the claimed and effectively exercised by
bearers and ethnographers alike. The
merit of being rigorously operational the authorities in Peking. I would
Jews today are less a religious sect
in the library most of the time. Other classify its inhabitants by their
than an ex-state; that is, they are
domestic speech into one Aztec type
aware of their descent from the formerimportant variations in culture may
properly be the basis for other sorts cultunit (Mandarin speakers) and a con-
citizens of the ancient Jewish state.
of taxonomies. Mine is a taxonomy of siderable number of Tarascan type
The Basque communities today are
units qua units. cultunits, among which would be
better defined as communities of those
found speakers of such Chinese
aware of their descent from Basque Application of the Cultunit dialects as Cantonese, Hakka, Fu-
speakers than as those who speak in Practice kienese, etc. I would pay no attention
Basque still. Such important "ex-
In proposing the cultunit as an "ideal at all to the fact that those inhabitants
cultunits" always have names for
themselves. Operationally, Jaspan doestype"-or "logical construct," if you who are literate employ a single
prefer that term-I did not make clear common ideographic script which they
not suggest how he dis,tinguishes im-
enough how I mean it to be used. pronounce differently when reading
portant elements of common folklore
Several commentators failed to grasp aloud.
and history from unimportant ones.
my meaning. I offer it to compara- Similarly, I would divide the
Particular Taxonomic Criteria tivists in cross-cultural surveys to be peoples of the United Kingdom into
Obviously, if either Bessac's or used whenever enough data is available one Aztec type and a number of Ta-
J aspan's proposal is accepted, it to permit its use. In other words, I rascan types. The Aztec type would

Vol. 5 * No. 4 * October 1964 309

This content downloaded from 62.204.192.85 on Fri, 04 Aug 2017 13:39:37 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
consist of those inhabitants of the
U.K. who are domestic speakers of
some English dialect intertelligible
with that used to conduct business by
Her Maies,ty's government. I would
distinguish as Tarascan types, domestic
speakers of those surviving dialects of
English which are not intertelligible
with the Queen's English (including
one or more types of Cockney and one
or more types of Lowland Scots, and
perhaps many others). I would also
distinguish as additional Tarascan
types the speakers of one or more
varieties of Welsh and one or more
varieties of Gaelic. Similarly in
France, I would distinguish the
domestic speaker of literary Parisian
on the one hand and of non-inter-
telligible provincial dialects (patois)
on the other; and further distinguish
as necessary among Breton and Basque
speakers. In what is left of the over-
seas British and French empires (not
counting militarily and diplomatically
independent associates), I would con-
sider as part of the metropolitan Aztec
type cultunit domestic speakers of
standard English or literary Parisian,
respectively. and sort out domestic
speakers of other dialects (whether
English or French pidgins or not) as so
many Tarascan type cultunits.
The Validity of the Cross-Cultural
Survey Method as a Whole
I agree with Driver in calling for full
studies of entire regions, of the sort
he has done so well, along with cross-
cultural surveys. Driver is calling our
attention to the need for a good "mix"
in our professional research effort as a
whole. We must not neglect ithe
regional study, or the concomitant
variation study of the Redfield-Eggan
type, or the analytical case study of
the single group. I also agree with
Driver in his endorsement of Kobben's
critique of the cross-cultural survey
method. Kobben lists a considerable
number of basic problems of method, States is commonly called behavioral
calls for their solution, and predicts an science. In this country, a large
important role for studies so improved. proportion of social or cultural an-
Leach takes quite another position. thropologists consider themselves be-
He considers the cross-cultural survey havioral scientists. Thus they associate
method utter nonsense and a complete themselves with most American so-
waste of time, and he says he speaks ciologists and social psychologists as
for most British social anthropologists. well as with the behavioral group of
He gives 2 reasons- for this view here; American political scientists and with
elsewhere (Leach 1963; Leach 1964) he such economists as Kenneth Boulding.
gives still others. What he perceives In Britain, behavioral science is well
as difficulties of categorization seem to represented at such red-brick universi-
me rather difficulties of quality con- ties as London and Manchester, but
trol (Naroll 1962). I am not so ready not I think at the ancient, prestigeful
as Leach to pronounce impossible a centers of Oxford and Cambridge.
correct Ethnographic Atlas entry on There the study of human behavior is
the Kachins. Either Leach wrote them overwhelmingly humanistic, over-
up misleadingly, or the comparativists whelmingly descriptive, analytical,
did not read him carefully. Similarly, and intuitive.
it is notorious that the term "clan" Needless to say, humanistic studies
has been used inconsistently by anthro-are well represented on all American
pologists (Leach 1964). If the com- campuses and are fully respected by
pilers of the Ethnographic Atlas did behavioral scientists. Description, ana-
not take this problem into considera- lysis, and intuition are essential, we all
tion, they fell short of the ideal agree. But at Oxford or Cambridge,
standards of care. By classifying not only in the Department of Social
reports according to date of compila- Anthropology, but on the campus as a
tion and nationality of author, one can whole, social studies are almost entire-
expect errors of this sort to be detected ly seen as exclusively humanistic. The
if they are frequent and if they pro- possibility of a natural science of
duce biases raither than random errors. human behavior, in which regularities
Thus one can protect oneself from in- are identified through rigorous studies,
ferring correlations which actually is emphatically denied. Thus Leach is
reflect pairs of biases of this sort, talking at cross-purposes with those of
rather than behavior of the people us who are behavioral scientists. He
studied. wants only to describe structure and to
However, this sort of protection is classify; we want also to study the
of no value to Leach. He takes no interrelationships between variables.
interest in correlations. By "theory" Nevertheless, critiques from keen,
he and many of his British colleagues knowledgable observers like Leach are
do not mean the analysis of relation- helpful to us; they keep us on our toes
ships (hopefully causal relationships) and remind us of questions we must
among variables. They simply mean answer. Our best answers will come in
categorization. This attitude is espe- the form of truly rigorous cross-cul-
cially prevalent at Oxford and Cam- tural surveys which demonstrate the
bridge. It is not confined there to existence of correlations and show that
social anthropologists but is a general these cannot be plausibly explained
characteristic of social studies. The away as artifacts of unit definition in-
cross-cultural survey is an element in consistency, of sampling bias, of data
a broader interdisciplinary approach reporting or coding error, or of mere
to social studies which in the United diffusion.

References Cited
ALENCASTRE, J. M. PEREIRA DE. 1864.
Annaes da Provincia de Goyaz. Revista
Trimensal do Instituto Historico, Geogra-
phico e Ethnographico do Brasil, Toma
27, Parte Segunda (Vol. 29), Quarto
Trimestre, pp. 229-349. [AHN*]
ALLEE, W. C. 1958. Revised edition. The
social life of animals. Boston: Beacon
Press. [DL*]
ANCHIETA, JOSEPH DE, S. J. 1933. Cartas,
informac6es, fragmentos histcricos e ser-
m5es do... (1554-1594). Publicag6es
da Academia Brasileira. II. Hist6ria, Car-
tas Jesulticas 3. Rio de Janeiro. [AHN*]
BARNICOT, NIGEL A. 1963. Racial taxon-
omy. Current Anthropology 4:117-18.
[AHN*]
BARROW, JOHN. 1801-4. An account of
travels into the interior of South Africa.
2 vols. London: T. Cadell & W. Davies.
BEACH, DOUGLAS M. 1938. The phonetics
of the Hottentot language. Cambridge,
England: Hefner.
BEALS, RALPH L. and HARRY HOIJER.
1959. An introduction to anthropology.
New York: Macmillan. [AHN*]
BECKER, HOWARD. 1950. Through values
to social interpretation. Durham, N.C.:
Duke Unive-sity Press. [G&AS*]
BENJAMIN, A. CORNELIUS. 1937. An intro-
duction to the philosophy of science. New
York: Macmillan. [AHN*]
BERNDT, RONALD M. 1959. The concept
of "the tribe" in the western desert of
Australia. Oceania 30:81-107.
BIcGs, BRUCE. 1957. Testing intelligibility
among Yuman languages. International
journal of American Linguistics 23:
No. 2, pp. 57-62.
BRIDGES, THOMAS. 1948. "The Canoe In-
dians of Tierra del Fuego," in A reader
in general anthropology. Edited by Carle-
ton S. Coon, pp. 84-116. New York-
Holt.
CAMPBELL, A. 1868. On the tribes around
Darjeeling. Transactions of the Ethno-
logical Society of London 7:144-59.
CAPELL, ARTHUR. 1941. A new Fijian dic-
tionary. Sydney: Australasian Medical
Pub. Co.
--. 1962. Revised edition. A linguis-
tic survey of the southwcstern Pacific,
Noumea: South Pacific Commission.
CARNEIRO, ROBERT L. and STEPHEN F.
TOBIAS. 1963. The application of scale
analysis to the study of cultural evolution.
Transactions of the New York Academy
of Sciences, Series II, 26:196-207.
Cartas Avulsas 1550-1568. 1931. Publica-
g6es da Academia Brasileira. II. Hist6ria,
Cartas Jesui'ticas 2. Rio de Janeiro.
[AHN*]
CHAPANIS, A. 1954. The reconstruction of
abbreviated printed messages. Journal of
Experimental Psychology 48-.496-510.

310 CURRENT ANTHROPOLOGY

This content downloaded from 62.204.192.85 on Fri, 04 Aug 2017 13:39:37 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
CHAPPLE, ELIOT D. and CARLETON S. COON. Naroll: ON ETHNIC UNIT CLASSIFICATION
1942. Principles of anthropology. New
York: Holt. [EDC*] Bielicki. Current Anthropology 3:27-28. method in social anthropology," in Read-
CHEYNE, ANDREW. 1852. A description of [RM*] ings in cross-cultural methodology. Edited
islands ... London: Potter. GODDARD, PLINY E. 1903-4. Life and cul- by Frank W. Moore, pp. 175-92. Human
COHEN, MORRIS R. and ERNEST NAGEL. ture of the Hupa. Hupa Texts. Univer- Relations Area Files, New Haven,, Conn.
1934. An introduction to logic and scien- sity of California Publications in Ameri- [HED*]
tific method. New York: Harcourt, Brace. can Archeology and Ethnology 1:1-88, KRADER, LAWRENCE. 1959. "Recent trends
COLSON, E. 1954. "The intensive study of 89-368. in Soviet anthropology," in Biennial
small sample communities," in Method --. 1911. Athapascan. Handbook of review of anthropology 1959. Edited by
and perspective in anthropology. Edited American Indian languages. Bureau of Bernard J. Siegel, pp. 155-84. Stanford,
by R. Spencer, pp. 43-58. Minneapolis: American Ethnology, Bull. No. 40, Part Calif.: Stanford University Press.
University of Minnesota Press. [RMB*] I: 85-158. Washington, D.C.: U.S. [AHN*]
COOPER, JOHN M. 1944. Areal and tem- Govt. Printing Office. KRAMER, AUGuSTIN. 1937. Zentralkaro-
poral aspects of aboriginal South Ameri- GODPiE-MOLSBERGEN, EVERHARDUS C., ed. linen. "I. Halbband: Lamotrek - Oleai
can culture. Annual Report of the Smith- 1916. Reizen in Zuid-Afrika in de Hol- -Feis," in Ergebnisse der Sfidsee-Expedi-
sonian Institution for the year 1943: landse Tijd, Vol. XI. 's-Gravenhage: tion 1908-1910. Edited by G. Thilenius,
pp. 429-61. [AHN*] Publication of the Linschoten Society. Vol. 10. Hamburg: Friederichsen.
DAMM, HANS. 1938. Zentralkarolinen. "II. GOODENOUGH, WARD H. 1956. Residence KROEBER, A. L. 1923. Anthropology. New
Halbband: Ifaluk - Aurepik - Faraulip rules. Southwestern Journal of Anthro- York: Harcourt, Brace and Co. [HED*]
- Sorol - Mogemog," in Ergebnisse der pology 12:37. 1936. Culture area distributions III:
Sfidsee-Expedition. Edited by G. Thile- GUSINDE, MARTIN. 1931. Die Selk'nam. Area and climax. University of California
nius, Vol. 10. Hamburg: Friederichsen. Die Feuerland Indianer, Vol. 1. Modling Publications in American Archeology and
DOBZHANSKY, THEODOSIUS. 1962. Comment bei Wien: Anthropos. Ethnology 37:111-12.
on "Issues in the study of race: Two 1937. Die Yamana. Die Feuerland KROEBER, A. L. and CLYDE KLUCKHOHN.
views from Poland," by A. Wiercinski Indianer, Vol. 2. Mbdling bei Wien: 1952. Culture: A critical review of con-
and T. Bielicki. Current Anthropology 3:
Anthropos. cepts and definitions. Papers of the Pea-
26-27. [RM*] HIERNAUX, J. 1962. Comment on "Issues body Museum of American Archaeology
DRIVER, HAROLD E. 1956. An integration in the study of race: Two views from and Ethnology, Vol. 47, No. 1. Cam-
of functional, evolutionary and historical Poland," by A. Wiercinski and T. Bielicki. bridge, Mass. [AHN*]
theory by means of correlations. Indiana Current Anthropology 3:29-30. [RM*] 1963. Culture: A critical
University Publications in Anthropology HOBHOUSE, L. T., G. C. WHEELER and M. concepts and definition. New York: Ran-
and Linguistics, Memoir 12. GINSBERG. 1930. The material culture dom House. [DL*]
1961. Indians of North America. and social institutions of the simpler KUNOW, STEN. 1906. "General Introduc-
Chicago: University of Chicago Press. peoples. London: Chapman and Hall. tion, Specimens of the ... Himalayan
DRIVER, HAROLD E., JOHN M. COOPER HODGSON, BRIAN H. 1857. Comparative Dialects .. ." (Part I, "Tibeto-Burman
PAUL KIRCHHOFF, DOROTHY LIBBY, WM. vocabulary of the language of the broken Family." Edited by George A. Grierson),
C. MASSEY, and LESLIE SPIER. 1953. tribes of Nepal. Journal of the Royal in Linguistic Survey of India, Vol. III.
Indian tribes of North America. Indiana Asiatic Society of Bengal 26:317-49. Calcutta.
University Publications in Anthropology HOEBEL, E. ADAMSON. 1958. 2d edition. LEACH, EDMUND. 1954. Political systems of
and Linguistics, Memoir 9. [HED*] Man in the primitive world. New York: highland Burma. London: Bell.
DRIVER, HAROLD E. and A. L. KROEBER. McGraw Hill. [AHN*]
1960. Review of: Organization of
1932. Quantitative expression of cultural HOERNLE, AGNES W. 1925. The social
work: A comparative analysis of produc-
relationships. University of California organization of the Nama Hottentots of
tion among non-industrial peoples, by
Publications in American Archaeology and southwest Africa. American Anthropol-
Stanley H. Udy, Jr. (New Haven: HRAF
Ethnology 31:211-56. [HED*] ogist 27:1-24.
Press 1959). American Sociological Re-
DRIVER, HAROLD E. and WILLIAM C. HOIJER, HARDY. 1946. Introduction to view: 25:136-38.
MASSEY. 1957. Comparative studies of Linguistic structures of native America.
North American Indians. Transactions of Edited by H. Hoijer, pp. 9-29. Viking --. 1963. Comment on: "Forms and
the American Philosophical Society, 47.
problems of validation in social anthro-
Fund Publications in Anthropology, No.
pology," by William J. McEwen. Current
Philadelphia. 6. [HED*]
Anthropology 4:174.
EMBER, MELVIN. 1963. The relationship HONIGMANN, JOHN J. 1959. The world of
between economic and political develop- man. New York: Harper. [AHN*] - 1964. Comment on scheffler's note
ment in non-industrialized societies. Eth- Hsu, FRANCIS L. K. 1963. Clan, caste and on the Mangaian Kopu. American Anthro-
nology 2:228-48.
pologist 66:427-29.
club. Princeton: Van Nostrand.
EVANS-PRITCHARD, E. E. 1940. "The Nuer HYMEs, DELL. 1960. Lexicostatistics so far. LEEs, ROBERT B. 1953. The basis of glotto-
of the Southern Sudan," pp. 272-96 in Current Anthropology 1:3-44. chronology. Language 29:113-27.
African political systems. Edited by Meyer JASPAN, M. A. 1957. Bangsa dan Suku- [HED*]
Fortes and E. E. Evans-Pritchard. London: bangsa di Indonesia. Jogjakarta: Kemen- LEVINE, ROBERT A. 1961. Anthropology
Oxford. terian Penerangan. [MAJ*] and the study of conflict: an introduc-
FISON, LORIMER. 1886. Specimens of Fiji - . 1959. A provisional list of Indo- tion. Journal of Conflict Resolution 5:
dialects. Edited by A. S. Gatschet. Inter- 3-15.
nesian ethnic groups. Sosiografi Indo-
nationale Zeitschrift fair Allgemeine nesia 1:75-90. [MAJ*] LOTHRQP, SAMUEL K. 1928. The Indians
Sprachwissenschaft 2:193-208. KEESING, FELIX M. 1958. Cultural anthro- of Tierra del Fuego. Contributions,
FORTES, MEYER. 1940. "The political sys- pology, the science of custom. New York: Museum of American Indians, Heye
tem of the Tallensi of the northern Rinehart. [AHN*] Foundation, Vol. 10.
territories of the Gold Coast," pp. 239- KENDALL, M. G. and W. R. BUCKLAND. McKINNEy, JoHN C. 1957. "Methodology,
71 in African Political Systems. Edited 1957. A dictionary of statistical terms. procedures and techniques in sociology,"
by Meyer Fortes and E. E. Evans- London: Oliver and Boyd. [RM*] in Modern sociological theory in con-
Pritchard. London: Oxford. KENNEDY, R. 1945. Biography of Indo- tinuity and change. Edited by Howard
FORTES, MEYER and E. E. EVANS-PRITCHARD, nesian peoples and cultures. New Haven: Becker and Alvin Boskoff, po. 186-235.
eds. 1940. African political systems. Lon- Human Relations Area Files. [MAJ*] [AHN*]
don: Oxford. KLUCKHOHN, CLYDE. 1960. "The use of MALINOWSKI, B. 1922. Argonauts of the
FREEMAN, LINTON C. 1957. An empirical typology in anthropological theory," in western Pacific. London: George Rout-
test of folk urbanism. Ann Arbor: Uni- Men and cultures, selected papers of the ledge and Sons. [JW*]
versity Microfilms, No. 23502. Vth International Congress of Anthro- MONTAGU, M. F. ASHLEY. 1960. 3d edition.
FRITZ, GEORG. 1911. Die Zentralkaroli- pological and Ethnological Sciences. Edited An introduction to physical anthropology.
nische Sprache. Berlin: Reimer. by Anthony F. C. Wallace, pp. 134-40. Sprinigfield, Ill.: C. C. Thomas.
GARN, STANLEY M. 1962. Comment on Philadelphia. [AHN*] [AHN*]
"Issues in the study of race: Two views KOBBEN, ANDRE J. 1961. "New ways of MUKHERJEE, RAMKRISHNA. 1961. A note on
from Poland," by A. Wiercinski and T. presenting an old idea: The statistical village as unit or variable for studies of

Vol. 5 *No. 4 *October 1964 311

This content downloaded from 62.204.192.85 on Fri, 04 Aug 2017 13:39:37 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 rural society. Eastern Anthropologist 14:
3-29. rRM*]
MUKHERJEE, RAMKRISHNA and SuRAj BAN-
DYOPADHYAY. 1964. "Social research and
Mahalanobis's D2," in Contributions to
statistics (in press). Calcutta: Statistical
Publishing Society, and Oxford: Pergamon
Press. [RM*]
MURDOCK, GEORGE P. 1953. "The process-
ing of anthropological materials," in
Anthropology today. Edited by A. L.
Kroeber, pp. 476-87. Chicago: Univer-
sity of Chicago Press.
--. 1957. World ethnographic sample.
American Anthropologist 59:664-87.
--. 1958. 2nd edition, revised. Outline
of world cultures. New Haven: Human
Relations Area Files.
--. 1960. "Typology in the area of social
organization," in Men and cultures,
selected papers of the Vth International
Congress of Anthropological and Ethno-
logical Sciences. Edited by Anthony F. C.
Wallace, pp. 183-88. Philadelphia.
[AHN*]
1962. Ethnographic atlas. Ethnology
1:269. [JW*]
--. 1963. Ethnographic atlas. Ethnology
2:249-53.
NADEL, SIEGFRIED F. 1951. The founda-
tions of social anthropology. London,
Cohen and West.
NAGEL, ERNEST. 1946. "Russell's philo-
sophy of science," in The philosophy of
Bertrand Russell. Edited by Paul Arthur
Schilpp, pp. 317-49. Evanston, Ill.: The
Library of Living Philosophers. [AHN*]
NAROLL, RAOUL. 1956. A preliminary in-
dex of social development. American
Anthropologist 58:687-715.
--. 1961a. Two solutions to Galton's
problem. Philosophy of Science 28:15-39.
--. 1961b. MS. Two stratified random
samples for a cross-cultural survey.
--. 1962. Data quality control. New
York: The Free Press of Glencoe.
--. 1964. A fifth solution to Galton's
problem. American Anthropologist 66:
No. 4, August.
NAROLL, RAOUL and FRADA NAROLL. 1962.
Social development of a Tyrolean vil-
lage. Anthropological Quarterly 35:103-
20.
NAROLL, RAOUL and RoY G. D'ANDRADE.
1963. Two further solutions to Galton's
problem. American Anthropologist, Oct.
1963, in press.
NIMuENDAJu, KURT. 1915. Vokabular der
Timbiras von Muranhao und Para. Zeit-
schrift f&r Ethnologie 47:302-5.
--. 1939. The Apinaye. Catholic Univer-
sity of America Anthropology Series,
No. 8. (Translated from German by
Robert H. Lowie.)
--. 1942. The gerente. Translated by
Robert H. Lowie. Publications of the
Frederick Webb Hodge Anniversary Pub-
lication Fund, 4. Los AngeJes: The South-
western Museum. [AHN*]
--. 1946. The eastern Timbira. Univer-
sity of California Publication in Ameri-
can Archeology and Ethnology, Vol. 41.
(Translated from German by Robert H.
Lowie.)
N6BREGA, P. MANUEL DA. 1955. Cartas do
Brasil e mais escritos do... (opera
omnia). Coimbra: Universidad do Coim-
bra. [AJN*]
PARSONS, TALCOTT. 1958. Revised edition.
Essays in sociological theory. Glencoe, Ill.:
The Free Press. [AHN*]
This content downloaded from 62.204.192.85 on Fri, 04 Aug 2017 13:39:37 UTC
PIERCE, JOE E. 1954. Crow vs. Hidatsa in
dialect distance and glottochronology.
International Journal of American Lin-
guistics 20:134-6.
PILLING, ARNOLD R. 1962. Statistics, sor-
cery and justice. American Anthropologist
64:1057-59.
POWDERMAKER, HORTENSE. 1933. Life in
Lesu. New York: Norton.
QUIGLEY, CARROLL. 1961. The evolution
of civilizations. New York: Macmillan.
RADCLIFFE-BROWN, A. R. 1922. The An-
daman Islanders. Cambridge, Eng.: Uni-
versity Press.
--. 1940a. "Preface," pp. xi-xxiii in
African political systems. Edited by
MEYER FORTES and E. E. EVANS-
PRITCHARD, London: Oxford.
--. 1940b. On social structure. Journal
of the Royal Anthropological Institute
70:1-12.
REDFIELD, ROBERT. 1941. Folk culture of
Yucatan. University of Chicago Press.
REICHARD, GLADYS A. 1938. "Social life,"
in General anthropology. Edited by Franz
Boas, pp. 409-86. New York: Heath.
RIBEIRO, DARCY. 1957. Linguas e culturas
ind'genas do Brasil. Rio de Janeiro:
Centro Brasileiro de Pesquisas Educa-
cionais. [AHN*]
RIVET, PAUL. 1911. La famille linguistique
Peba. Journal de la Societe des Ameri-
canistes de Paris, n.s., 8:173-206.
RUSSELL, BERTRAND. 1948. Human knowl-
edge, its scope and limits. London:
George Allen and Unwin. [AHN*]
SCHAPERA, I. 1930. The Khoisan peoples
of South Africa. London, Routledge.
--. 1953. Some comments on compara-
tive method in social anthropology. Ameri-
can Anthropologist 55:353-62.
--. 1956. Government and politics in
tribal societies. London: C. Watts.
SIMON, HERBERT. 1955. On a class of skew
distribution functions. Biometrika 42:425.
SNETHLAGE, HEINRICH. 1930. Unter nord-
ostbrasilianischen Indianern. Zeitschrift
fur Ethnologie 62:111-205.
SPENGLER, OSWALD. 1926. The decline of
the West. New York: Knopf. 2 vols.
(Translated from German by Charles
Francis Atkinson.)
STADEN, HANS. 1930. Viagem ao Brasil.
Versao do texto de Marpurgo, de 1557,
por Alberto L6fgren. Publicasoes da
Academia Brasileira. II. Hist6ria. Rio de
Janeiro. - [AHN*]
STARR, CHESTER G. 1962. The origins of
Greek civilization, 1100-650 B.C. Lon-
don: Jonathan Cape. [AHN*]
STEBBING, L. SUSAN. 1961. 7th edition. A
modern introduction to logic. London:
Methuen. [AHN*] Fijians, Vol. 1. Edited by George R.
STEWARD, Rowe.
JULIAN London:
H.
in Handbook of South American Indians.
Edited by Julian H. Steward. Smithsonian
Institution, Bureau of American Ethnology
Bulletin 143, 1:1-9. Washington, D.C.
[AHN*]
1955. Theory of culture change.
Urbana, Ill.: University of Illinois Press.
[FDB*]
STEWARD, JULIAN H. and AFRED ME-
TRAUX. 1948. The Peban tribes. Hand-
book of South American Indians, III:
728-36.
STOW, GEORGE W. 1910. The native races
of South Africa. London: Swan Sonnen-
schein.
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
SWADESH, MoRRIS R. 1950. Salish internal
relationships. International Journal of
American Linguistics 16:157-67.
1959. The mesh principle in com-
parative linguistics. Anthropological Lin-
guistics 1:7-14. [HED*]
TEIT, JAMES A. 1930. The Salishan tribes
of the Western Plateaus. Annual Reports
of the Bureau of American Ethnology
XLV: 37-197. Washington, D.C.: U.S.
Govt. Printing Office.
TOYNBEE, ARNOLD J. 1947. Abridged
edition. A study- of history. New York:
Oxford.
VAN NIEUWENHUIJZE, C. A. 0. 1963.
Cross-cultural studies. The Hague: Mou-
ton and Co. [FDB*]
VOEGELIN, C. F. and ZELLIG S. HARRIS.
1951. Methods for determining intelligi-
bility among dialects of natural languages.
American Philosophical Society Proceed-
ings 95:322-29.
VOEGELIN, C. F. and E. W. VOEGELIN.
1941. Map of North American Indian
languages. American Ethnological Society
Publications, No. 20. [HED*]
WANDRES, C. 1927. Tiernamen in der
Nama- und Bergdama Sprache etymo-
logisch erlautert. Festschrift Karl Mein-
hof. Sprachwissenschaftliche und andere
Studien: 125-233. Hamburg: Friederich-
sen, de Gruyter & Co.
WATKINS, J. W. N. 1953. "Ideal types and
historical explanation," in Readings in
the philosophy of science. Edited by
Herber Feigl and May Brodbeck, pp.
723-43. New York: Appleton-Century-
Crofts. [AHN*]
WEBER, M. 1949. The methodology of the
social sciences. Translated and edited by
E. A. Shils and H. A. Finch. Glencoe,
Ill.: Free Press. [G&AS*]
WHITE, LESLIE A. 1954. Review of The
nature of culture, by A. L. Kroeber, and
Culture: A critical review of concepts and
definitions, by A. L. Kroeber and Clyde
Kluckhohn. American Anthropologist 56:
461-68. [AHN*]
WHITING, JOHN W. M. 1954. "The cross-
cultural method," in Handbook of social
psychology. Edited by Gardner Lindzey,
Vol. 1:523-31. Cambridge, Mass.: Ad-
dison-Wesley.
WHITING, J. and B. WHITING. 1960. "Con-
tributions of anthropology to the methods
of studying child rearing," in Handbook
on research methods in child development.
Edited by P. H. Mussen, New York: John
Wiley. [JW*I
WILLIAMs, ROGER J. 1958. Chemical
anthropology-an open door. American
Scientist 46:1-24. [DL*]
WILLIAMS, THOMAS. 1858. Fiji and the
A. Heylin. "Introduc
1946.
WISSLER, CLARK. 1917. The American
Indian. New York: D.C. McMurtrie.
[HED*]
WOLFF, HANS. 1959. Intelligibility and
inter-ethnic attitudes. Anthropological Lin-
guistics 1:34-41. [LW*]
ZIPF, G. 1935. The psycho-biology of
language. Boston: Mifflin. [HF*I
---. 1946. "The psychology of language,"
in Encyclopaedia of psychology. Edited by
P. H. Harriman, New York: Philosophical
Library. [HF*]
--.1949. Human behaviour and the
principle of least eff ort. Cambridge, Mass.:
Addison-Wesley. [HF*]
CURRENT ANTHROP OL OG Y