228 SYSTEMS OF CONSANGUINITY AND AFFINITY 



Their system of consanguinity as it now prevails in twenty-four dialects, more or 

 less distinct, has been presented and compared, through the indicative relationships, 

 with the typical form. The identity of the system of all of these nations in what- 

 ever is radical is not only manifest, but this identity continues through many 

 minute particulars which are not essential to the unity of the system. There is a 

 not less striking identity in the classification of marriage relatives, amongst the 

 widely separated Algonkin nations, which it would have been interesting to trace 

 had it been necessary to strengthen, from this source, ihe principal argument for 

 unity of origin. The marriage relationships, standing alone, would have been 

 sufficient to^'demonstrate this question. They are fully spread out in the Table. 

 The maintenance of the system amongst the Algonkin nations with so much ful- 

 ness and precision, and through the periods of time required for the formation of 

 these dialects, and for their divergence from each other to the extent now exhibited, 

 yields decisive evidence of its enduring nature, and of the vital energy of the 

 principles it embodies. But the identity thus established does not expend its force 

 in demonstrating the unity of origin of the Algonkin nations. This is the least 

 important of its revelations. This system has shown itself capable of crossing 

 intact the barrier that separates one stock language from another ; and of main- 

 taining itself, in each, through the still longer periods of time which the present 

 condition and relations of the languages of these stems of the Ganowanian family 

 implies. Thus far, in the progress of the investigation, the radical forms of the 

 original system have not only perpetuated themselves, unimpared, in the Dakotan 

 and Algonkin nations, but its minute details have remained coincident to an extent 

 as remarkable as it is instructive. In other words the evidence of unity is in 

 superabundance. It tends to show that these two stems of the family converge to a 

 common point of union nearer, in point of time, than the other stems of the 

 family whose systems of relationship remain to be considered. 



In subsequent chapters we are to follow it amongst other great stocks of the 

 Ganowanian fiimily, and to subject it to still other tests of time and experience. 

 As it is shown in the Table it will not be found with the same fulness of devel- 

 opment, or with the same precision in subordinate details, which it has hitherto 

 displayed. Neither is it essential to the establishment of the identity of the sys- 

 tem, and the consequent unity of origin of the people, that the points of agreement 

 should be as multiform and decisive as they have been in the systems of the Algon- 

 kin and Dakotan nations. It can lose much of its agreement in minor details, 

 and even part with a portion -of its fundamental framework, and yet be capable of 

 identification as a common system. The difficulties forshadowed do not arise so 

 much from actual ascertained deviations from the typical form, as from the want of 

 a correct knowledge of the form which docs exist. Amongst the nations whose 

 systems are about to be considered, the facilities for investigation are less complete, 

 and the sources of information are less accessible, than within the areas over wliich 

 we have passed. The disorganized and demoralized condition of particular nations 

 does not imply the overthrow of their system of relationship. There are abundant 

 reasons for believing that it is the last domestic institution to give way. But 

 imperfect and incomplete schedules present a serious as well as intrinsic difficulty 



