OF THE H U M A K FAMILY. 467 



CHAPTER VI. 

 GENERAL RESULTS. 



General Results considered in a Series of Propositions — Two Radically Distinct Forms, the Descriptive and the 

 Classificatory — Peculiarities of each — Both Domestic Institutions — The Descriptive System is explicable from the 

 Nature of Descents upon the Assumption of the Existence of Marriage between Single Pairs — Classificatory not so 

 Explicable — Causes which might be supposed to have influenced the formation of tlie Latter — Uses of the Bond 

 of Kin for Mutual Protection — Influence of the Tribal Relationships— Of Polygamy and Polyandria— Insufficient 

 separately or collectively to account for the Origin of the System — Series of Customs and Institutions the assumed 

 Existence of which will explain the Origin of the Classificatory System from the Nature of Descents. 1. Promis- 

 cuous Intercourse— 2. The Intermarriage or Cohabitation of Brothers and Sisters— 3. The Communal Family— 

 4. The Hawaiian Custom— These explain the Origin of the Malayan System from the Nature of Descents — 5. 

 The Tribal Organization ; breaking up the Cohabitation of Brothers and Sisters— This explains the Origin of the 

 Remainder, or Turanian portion of the System— 6. Marriage between Single Pairs— 7. Polygamy— 8. The Patri- 

 archal Family — 9. Polyandria— 10. Rise of Property with the Establishment of Lineal Suecessio!i to Estates — 11. 

 The Civilized Family —12. Overthrow of the Classificatory System, and Substitution of the Descriptive — Evidence 

 from the System of the Unity of Origin of the American Indian Nations — Evidence of Its Transmission with 

 the Blood — Stability of Its Radical Forms — Coeval with the first Appearance of the Ganowanian Family upon 

 the American Continent — Turanian Family organized upon the Basis of the same System — Systems of the Tura- 

 nian and Ganowinian Families Identical — Evidence from this Source of the Asiatic Origin of the GauowSniau 

 Family — But Four Ways of accounting for this Identity — By borrowing from each other — By Accidental Inven- 

 tion in Disconnected Areas — By Spontaneous Growth in like Areas — By Transmission with the Blood from a 

 Common Source — First Three Hypotheses incapable of explaining the Facts — Reasons which appear to render the 

 Fourth sufficient — Adequacy of this Channel of Transmission — Stability of the Radical Features of the System — 

 Verification of its Mode of Propagation — Final Inference of the Asiatic Origin of the Ganowanian Family — Ma- 

 layan System not Derivable from the Turanian — Latter might have been Engrafted upon the Former — Malayan 

 the Oilier Form— But .Malayan Family not necessarily the Oldest — Malayan the Original System of the Turanian 

 Family — Its Turanian Element introduced after the Malayan Migration — Ganowanian Family probably derived 

 from the Turanian after the Separation of the Malayan — The Ganow^^lnian consequently the Youngest of the 

 three Families— Eskimo System— Mongolian and Tungusian Systems not iu the Tables— Probability that the 

 Eskimo will affiliate with que of them. 



The systems of consanguinity and affinity of six of the great families of man- 

 kind, the Aryan, Semitic, and Uralian, the Ganowanian, Turanian, and Malayan 

 have now been presented, together with a series of Tables illustrative of the forms 

 of each. In these Tables all of the principal, and many of the inferior nations of 

 the earth are represented. They contain the systems of relationship of eight- 

 tenths and upwards, numerically, of the entire human family. And notwithstand- 

 ing the absence of the Mongolian, Tungusian, Australian and Negroid nations, the 

 materials which they contain are sufficient to determine the nature and objects of 

 systems of relationship, considered as domestic institutions, the mode of their pro- 

 pagation, and their ultimate uses for ethnological purposes. 



In order to develop the general results which are derived from an investigation 

 of these several forms of consanguinity and affinity, and from their comparison 

 with each other, the following series of propositions will be considered: First. 

 How many systems of relationship, radically distinct from each other, exist amongst 



