132 SYSTEMS OF CONSANGUINITY AND AFFINITY 



which is not improbable, the term would still remain as an appropriate designation 

 for the American division. 



There are several features in the elaborate system of relationship about to be 

 presented that will arrest attention, and, perhaps, prompt inquiries, some of which 

 it may be advisable to anticipate. 



It may be premised, first, that every relationship which is discriminated by the 

 Aryan family, as well as a large number unnoticed, is recognized by the Gano- 

 wanian ; secondly, that the nomenclatures of relationship in the dialects of the latter 

 family are more opulent than those of any other, not excepting the Turanian; 

 and thirdly, that their system is so diversified with specializations and so compli- 

 cated in its classifications as to require careful study to understand its structure 

 and principles. Upon the strength of these statements it may be asked how rude 

 and uncultivated Indians have been able to maintain such a system of relationship 

 as that unfolded in the table 1 and, lastly, how it was possible to prosecute, through 

 so many unwritten dialects, the minute inquiries necessary to its fuU development, 

 and to verify the results'? The answers to these questions have such a direct 

 bearing upon the truthfulness of the table, upon which the final results of this 

 research must depend, as to overcome, in a great measure, the repugnance of the 

 author to refer to his personal labors in tracing out this extraordinary system of 

 relationship amongst the American Indian nations ; and he trusts that the necessity 

 which impels him to such a refei'ence will be received as a sufficient apology. 



A single usage disposes of the first of the proposed questions. The American 

 Indians always speak to each other, when related, by the term of relationship, and 

 never by the personal name of the individual addressed. In familiar intercourse, 

 and in formal salutation, they invariably address each other by the exact relation- 

 ship of consanguinity or affinity in which they stand related. I have put tlie 

 question direct to native Indians of more than fifty diff'erent nations, in most cases 

 at their villages or encampments, and the affirmance of this usage has been the 

 same in every instance. Over and over again it has been confirmed by personal 

 observation. When it is considered that the number of those who are bound 

 together by the recognized family tics is several times greater than amongst 

 ourselves, where remote collateral relatives are practically disowned, the necessity 

 for each person to understand the system through all its extent to enable him to 

 address his kinsman by the conventional term of relationship becomes at once 

 apparent. It is not only the custom to salute by kin, but an omission to recognize 

 in this manner a relative, would, amongst most of these nations, be a discourtesy 

 amounting to an affront. In Indian society the mode of address, when speaking 

 to a relative, is the possessive form of the term of relationship; e. g., my fafJier, 

 my elder hrotlier, my gra?idson, my nepheu\ my niece, my uncle, my son-in-lmo, my 

 hrothei--in-laic, and so on throughout the recognized relationships. If the parties 

 are not related, then my friend. The effect of this custom in imparting as well as 

 preserving a knowledge of the system through all of its ramifications is sufficiently 

 obvious. There is another custom which renders this one a practical necessity. 

 From some cause, of which it is not necessary here to seek an explanation, an 

 American Indian is reluctant to mention his own personal name. It would be a 



