174 SYSTEMS OF CONSANGUINITY AND AFFINITY 



they make the experiment and succeed in becoming a pastoral people, they will 

 reach a higher degree of prosperity and numbers in the future than they have 

 known in the past. In the course of events their removal to the plains may prove 

 the means of their preservation, and secure to them a more hopeful future than 

 awaits any other branch of the family. 



Of the thirteen distinct and independent Dakota bands or nations named, eleven 

 are represented in the Table (Table II, Part II). Their system of consanguinity 

 and affinity is one and the same among them aU, in every feature which is material, 

 and in nearly every minute particular. 



This would be expected from the near approach of their dialects to a common 

 speech ; but it is also important as a fact, since it tends to illustrate the living 

 power of the system, and its ability to perpetuate itself among geographically 

 separated nations. One form will be sufficient to present, and that of the Yanktons 

 will be selected as the standard system of these nations. 



It Avill not be necessary to take up the Yankton system of relationship as we did 

 the Seneca and present the several lines in detail, since it is material only to know 

 wlierein it agrees with the Seneca, and wherein it differs. This may be shown by 

 pointing out the differences in the Yankton, leaving it to be inferred that in other 

 respects it agrees with the Seneca ; or it may be shown by stating the indicative 

 relationsJdps, which not only reveal the fundamental characteristics of the system, 

 but which also control the several relationships that follow. There are upwards of 

 seventy different forms given in the Table in as many dialects of the Ganowanian 

 language ; and that which is true with respect to the Yankton is also equally true 

 with reference to the others. Whilst it is important to know the actual present 

 condition of the system among all of these nations to appreciate its nature and 

 principles as a domestic institution, its power of self-perpetuation, and its bearing 

 upon the question of the unity of origin of these nations, it would be too great a tax 

 upon the reader to go through the minute details of each. The Table contains the 

 full particulars. To this he is referred for a more minute knowledge of the system 

 pf each nation. Some plan, however, must be adopted for presenting so much of the 

 system of each nation, or of groups of closely affiliated nations, as will exhibit its 

 material characteristics. A statement of the general results of a comparison would 

 be less satisfactory than a comparison of the material characteristics themselves ; 

 because the latter will reveal the positive elements of the system. In most cases 

 the result desired can be secured by stating the indicative relationships, from which 

 its agreement or disagreement with the Seneca will be at once perceived. These 

 relationships disclose the radical features of the system. When they are found to 

 agree with the Seneca the identity of the two becomes established. In other cases, 

 where the differences are greater, it will be preferable to state the differences ; and 

 in still others it may be necessary to give details. The utmost brevity will be 

 sought, imder either form of explanation, in the survey about to be made of the 

 system of relationship of the remaining nations of the Ganowanian family. 



There are separate terms in the Yanlcton for grandfather and grandmother, 

 Tomi-hd' -she-nd and O'-clie ; for father and mother, Ah-la' and E'-nah ; for son and 

 daughter, Me-rJuiil-'-.sJie and M-cItonnJc'-she ; and a term in common gender for 



