930 
Analecta et Additamenta 
Anthropos 70. 1975 
1902 Tsimshian Texts. (Bulletin 27, Bureau of American Ethnology.) Washing 
ton, D. C. 
1912 Tsimshian Texts. (Publication of the American Ethnological Society, 3.) New 
York. 
1916 Tsimshian Mythology. 31st Annual Report of the Bureau of American Ethnol 
ogy, 1909-10. Washington, D. C. 
1935 Kwakiutl Culture as Reflected in Mythology. New York. American Folklore 
Society. 
Durlach, Teresa Mayer 
1928 Tlingit, Haida and Tsimshian. (Publication of the American Ethnological 
Society, 11.) New York. 
Fernandez, James 
1966 Unbelievable Subtle Words: Representation and Integration in the Sermons 
of an African Reformative Cult. History of Religions 66/1: 43-69. 
Garfield, Viola E. 
1939 Tsimshian Clan and Society. Seattle. University of Washington. 
Leach, Edmund 
1970 Claude Lévi-Strauss. New York. Viking. 
[edit.] 
1967 The Structural Study of Myth and Totemism. (A. S. A. Monographs, 5.) London. 
Tavistock. 
Lévi-Strauss, Claude 
1963 Do Dual Organizations Exist? In: Structural Anthropology. New York. Dou 
bleday. 
1964-68 Mythologiques. Paris. Plon. 
1967 The Story of Asdiwal. In : E. Leach [edit.] 1967 : 1-47. 
John H. Moore 
The Middle East as a Cultural-Linguistic Continent. — In the past, there have been 
scholars from various disciplines who have voiced their skepticism over giving a precise 
definition of the term Middle East (thus, for example, Fisher 1947, Heinecke 1960, and 
Pearcy 1959). Some scholars do not even agree that such an entity exists. Rather, they 
see the term as a “territorially indefinable state of mind” (Davison 1960: 674). However, 
these scholars notwithstanding, it is generally agreed today that the Middle East “refers 
to that area of the world comprising the present political states of Lebanon, Syria, Israel, 
Jordan, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Kuwayt, Bahrayn, Qatar, Trucial Oman, Muscat and Oman, 
Aden and Aden Protectorate, Yemen, Egypt, Sudan, Turkey, and Iran” (Fisher 1965: 3). 
Moreover, Middle Eastern anthropologists further agree that the Middle East so defined 
represents a well-demarcated, unified region from several points of view: ecological, geo 
graphical, historical, religious, etc. (thus Coon 1951, Patai 1962, and Van Nieuwen- 
huijze 1971, for example). Indeed, it is now generally accepted that the Middle East 
represents a true “culture continent” (Patai 1962: 15 ff.). 
Nevertheless, although it is thus claimed that the Middle East is unified culturally 
in the broad sense, it is not claimed to be similarly unified linguistically. As Van Nieu- 
wenhuijze succinctly writes (1971: 182), “The Middle East is not one linguistic area in 
the strict sense of the word.” Such a state of affairs is not, of course, atypical in the anthro 
pological-linguistic literature. As Sapir, for example, writes (1921: 213), “Language and 
culture are not intrinsically associated. Totally unrelated languages [can] share in one 
culture, closely related languages ... [can] belong to distinct cultural spheres.” Truly the 
Middle East on first view would seem to show this point well. Thus, as Van Nieuwen- 
huijze continues in his study (1971: 182), “There are three major languages and a number 
of minor ones [in the Middle East]. Each of the three major ones has its proper territory — 
Turkish in Turkey ..., Persian in Iran ..., Arabic elsewhere.” If we add Hebrew to this 
picture, it is, of course, clear that the languages are indeed “totally unrelated” linguisti 
cally, Hebrew and Arabic belonging to the Semitic family of languages, Turkish to the 
Ural-Altaic family, and Persian to the Indo-European family.