OF THE HUMAN FAMILY. 457 



wives, the same term being still used to designate them, which I apply to uiy own 

 wife ; and the husbands of these several collat(,'ral sisters are my brothers-in-law. 



In the third collateral line, my grandfather's brother is my grandfather ; his son 

 is my father ; the children of this father are my brothers and sisters ; their children 

 are my sons and daughters ; and the children of the latter are my grandchildren. 

 The remaining branches of this line give the same series. If the connection of 

 consanguinei is traced into the fourth and more remote collateral lines, the same 

 principle of classification is applied. 



From the foregoing analysis and detailed presentation of the Hawaiian form its 

 simplicity and originality are apparent. It is a clearly defined system, comprehen- 

 sive in its range, and uniform in its classification. The generalizations upon which 

 it rests are fundanicntally diff"ercnt from those which underlie the Aryan, Semitic, 

 and Uralian ; but they agree in part with those which organize the Turanian system. 

 In other words, half of the Hawaiian is Turanian, and the other half is not ; and 

 that part which is not Turanian is a duplicate of the part which is. The difi'er- 

 ences will be seen by placing the two forms side by side. Several interesting 

 problems are suggested by the comparison which will come up for discussion in 

 another place. 



It is important, in this connection, that particular attention should be directed 

 to the Hawaiian custom, or Pinaluanic bond which is mentioned by Judge Andrews 

 in the last section of his notes (supra, p. 453.) " The relationship of Pinalua," he 

 remarks, " is rather amphibious. It arose from the fact that two or more brothers 

 with their wives, or two or more sisters, with their husbands, were inclined to 

 possess each other in common ; but the modern use of the word is that of dear friend 

 or intimate companion." The Rev. Artemus Bishop refers to the same usage in the 

 following lano-uage : " This confusion of relationships is the result of the ancient 

 custom among relatives of the living together of husbands and wives in common." 



In this singular usage, which is now for the first time announced, so far as the 

 writer is aware, we recognize a custom older in point of time than polygamy and 

 polyandria, and yet invohing the essential features of both. The several brothers, 

 who thus cohabited with each other's wives, lived in polygynia ; and the several 

 sisters, who thus cohabited with each other's husbands, lived in polyandria. It also 

 presupposes communal families, with communism in living, which, there are 

 abundant reasons for supposing, were very general in the primitive ages of mankind ; 

 and one of the stages through which human society passed before reaching the 

 family in its proper sense, founded upon marriage between single pairs. 



Tlie Hawaiian custom aff"ords a probable solution of the Hawaiian system of 

 relationship. After this is determined a probable explanation of the ongin of the 

 Turanian may be obtained through other customs which together will be con- 

 sidered in a subsequent chapter. 



2. Maori, of New Zealand. Tlie dialects of New Zealand affiliate closely with 

 the Hawaiian, and the two peoples were evidently derived from the same immediate 

 stem. As far as the jNIaori system of relationship is given in the Table, it is 

 identical with the Hawaiian. 



.5S April, 1870. 



