CHAPTER I. 



INTRODUCTION. 



Causes which induced this Investigation— Peculiar System of Relationship among the Iroquois— Discovery of the 

 same among the Ojibwas — Inferences from their Identity — Its prevalence throughout the Indian Family rendered 

 probable— Plan adopted to determine the Question— Results Reached— Evidence of the existence of the same 

 System in Asia obtained— Range of the Investigation Extended— Necessity for including, as far as possible, all 

 the Families of Mankind— Method of Prosecuting the Inquiry— General Results— Materials Collected— Order of 

 Arrangement— Tables of Consanguinity and Affinity— Systems of Relationship as a Basis of Classification— Their 

 Use in Ethnological Investigations. 



As far back as the year 1846, while collecting materials illustrative of the 

 institutions of the Iroquois, I found among them, in daily use, a system of relation- 

 ship for the designation and classification of kindred, both unique and extraordinary 

 in its character, and wholly unlike any with which we are familiar. In the year 

 185P I published a brief accomit of this singular system, which I then supposed 

 to be of their own invention, and regarded as remarkable chiefly for its novelty. 

 Afterwards, in 1857,^ I had occasion to reexamine the subject, when the idea of its 

 possible prevalence among other Indian nations suggested itself, together with its 

 uses, in that event, for ethnological purposes. In the following summer, while on 

 the south shore of Lake Superior, I ascertained the system of the Ojibwa Indians; 

 and, although prepared in some measure for the residt, it was with some degree 

 of surprise that I found among them the same elaborate and complicated system 

 which then existed among the Iroquois. Every term of relationship was radically 

 different from the corresponding term in the Iroquois; but the classification of 

 kindred was the same. It was manifest that the two systems were identical in 

 their fundamental characteristics. It seemed probable, also, that both were 

 derived from a common source, since it was not supposable that two peoples, 

 speaking dialects of stock-languages as widely separated as the Algonkin and 

 Iroquois, could simultaneously have invented the same system, or derived it by 

 borrowing one from the other. 



From this fact of identity several inferences at once suggested themselves. As 

 its prevalence among the Seneca-Iroquois rendered probable its like prevalence 

 among other nations speaking dialects of the Iroquois stock-language, so its 

 existence and use among the Ojibwas rendered equally probable its existence and 

 use among the remaining nations speaking dialects of the Algonkin speech. If 

 investigation should establish the affirmative of these propositions it would give to 



' League of the Iroquois, p. 85. 



• Proceedings of American Association for Advancement of Science for 185T, Part II., p. 132. 



(3) 



