OF THE HUMAN FAMILY. 135 



lost the connection in following the thread of consanguinity, we commenced again ; 

 recording the several degrees, as we advanced, by counting the fingers on each 

 hand, or resorting to some other device to preserve the continuity of the line we 

 were following. If his knowledge of English was limited, which was frequently 

 the case, it Avas always manifest whether or not he understood the question, in a 

 particular instance, by his answer. It will thus be seen that to obtain their system 

 of relationship it was far preferable to consult a native Indian, who spoke Englisli 

 even imperfectly, rather than a white interpreter well versed in the Indian language. 

 Every question on the schedule was made personal to obtain the precise term of 

 relationship used by Ego, when addressing the person described. Aside from the 

 reason that this is the true method of ascertaining the exact relationship, the 

 Indian sometimes uses, when speaking of a relative, a different term from the one 

 used when speaking to him ; and if he employs the same term in both cases the 

 pronominal form is usually different. The following are illustrations of the form 

 of the question : " What do I call my father's brother when I speak to him." If 

 the question is asked a Seneca Indian he wiU answer "■Hd'-mli" my father. " What 

 do I call my father's brother's son if he is older than myself 1" He Avill answer 

 " Hd'-je" my elder brother. " What do I call my father's brother's son's son ]" 

 He will answer "5a-a7i'-«r«7i;," my son. "What should I call the same person 

 were I a woman f He will reply " Ea-so'-neJi" my nephew. After going through 

 all of the questions on the schedule in this manner, with a native speaking English, 

 settling the orthography, pronunciation, and accent of each term by means of 

 frequent repetitions, and after testing the work where it appeared to be necessary, 

 I was just as certain of the correctness of the results as I could have been if a 

 proficient in this particular Indian language. The same mode of procedure was 

 adopted, whether a native speaking English or a white interpreter speaking Indian 

 was employed. Such schedules as were obtained through the former agency were 

 always the most satisfactory, and procured with the least labor. 



It is a singular fact, but one which I have frequently verified, that those 

 Americans who are most thoroughly versed in Indian languages, from a long 

 residence in the Indian country, are unacquainted with their system of relationship 

 except its general features. It does not appear to have attracted their attention 

 sufficiently to have led to an investigation of its details even as a matter of curiosity. 

 Not one of the number have I ever found who, from his own knowledge, was able 

 to fill out even a small part of the schedule. Even the missionaries, Avho are 

 scholars as well as proficients in the native languages, were unfamiliar with its 

 details, as they had no occasion to give the matter a special examination. The 

 Rev. Cyrus Byington, who had spent upwards of forty years of missionary hfe 

 among the Choctas, wrote to me that "it required the united strength of the 

 mission" to fill out correctly the Chocta schedule in the table ; but the difficulty 

 was not so much in the system of consanguinity, although it contamed some extra- 

 ordinary features, as in following the several lines and holding each person 

 distinctly before the mind as formally described in the schedule. The same is also 

 true of the returned missionaries from Asia, Africa, and the islands of the Pacific, 

 as to the system of relationship which prevailed among the people with whom they 



