422 SYSTEMS OF CONSANGUINITY AND AFFINITY 



seen that it was originally Malayan in form, but with positive and distinct Tura- 

 nian elements engrafted upon it, which in the sequel will be found equally true of 

 the Turanian system as a whole. The Chinese is more complicated than any 

 system contained in the Tables, and yet not so difficult as to forbid its universal 

 use amongst the people. If they address each other, in familiar intercourse, by the 

 terms of relationship, instead of their personal names, this usage Avould impart as 

 well as preserve a knowledge of the system. Whether or not this mode of address 

 generally prevails the writer is not able to state. In the immediate family they 

 speak to each other by the terms of relationship, and not by personal names. This 

 fact is stated upon the authority of Rev. Mr. Talmadge before mentioned, who had 

 observed the usage at Amoy in Chinese families with whom he was in constant 

 intercourse. 



There are said to be barbarous tribes in the interior and mountain districts of 

 China who are imperfectly controlled by the government, and who enjoy some 

 measure of independence. In this class of the population the primitive system of 

 this ancient nation, imcncumbered with the qualifying terms, might be expected 

 to be found. If the form now in use among them is ever procured, it will settle 

 the question of the character of the original system, as well as explain its present 

 characteristics. 



Below, in a note,' Avill be found the letter of Mr. Hart, which accompanied 



Canton, China, Sept. 18, 1860. 



Dear Sie : In compliance with the request made by you in your circular letter dated 1st October, 

 1859, and which has been placed in my hands by Mr. Perry, TJ. S. Consul at this port, I have much 

 pleasure in forwarding, through that gentleman, for your perusal, a schedule (with remarks) of the 

 system of relationship in existence in China. 



My comparison of the Chinese system with the results of your inquiries amongst the American 

 Indian tribes, inclines me to think that it not merely j^ossesses the radical features of the Indian 

 system, but that it further possesses those features in such a manner as to give ground for the suppo- 

 sition that, while most intimately connected, it — the Chinese system — precedes, as it were, and is 

 much nearer the parent relationship system than is the Indian system. 



If, from the e.xarainatiou of the schedule now forwarded, you should wish further inquiries to be 

 made, I shall most willingly give my assistance ; the subject already interests me not a little. 



Very faithfully, yours, ROBERT HART. 



Lewis II. Morgan, Esq., New York. 



Observations by Hon. Robert Hart, upon the annexed Schedule, &c. 



1. The Chinese system of relationship is, as will be seen, based upon definite ideas, standing in 

 fixed and intelligent relations to each other. The bond of consanguinity does not lose itself in the 

 diverging collateral lines, while these collateral lines revert into, or are merged in the lineal, the 

 merging process acting upwards as well as downwards, 



2. The groundwork of the system, judging from the nomenclature employed, is to be found in the 

 terms used to designate the immediate or nearest relations of any individual, viz., father, mother, 

 brother, sister, son, daughter. All the persons related by consanguinity to such an individual are 

 regarded by him as standing in some one or other of these relationships to himself; but while the 

 true father is styled simply father, the true brother, brother, and the true son, son, the others are 

 styled class fathers, class brothers, and class sons; the word for "class" being in each case one 

 authorized by both rule and practice, and which expresses clearly the manner in which such a rela- 

 tionship originated. 



3. The brothers and sisters of one's grandparents are styled " class grandparents," the word for 



