468 SYSTEMS OF CONSANGUINITY AND AFFINITY 



the nations represented in the Tables "? Secondly. "SMiether or not their several forms 

 rest upon and embody clearly-defined ideas and principles, and contain the essen- 

 tial qualities of a domestic institution. Thirdly. Whether or not the origin of the 

 descriptive system can be accounted for and explained from the nature of descents, 

 and upon the principle of natural suggestion, on the assumption of the existence 

 of the state of marriage between single pairs. Fourthly. Whether or not the 

 origin of the classificatoiy system can be accounted for and explained from the 

 nature of descents and upon the principle of natural suggestion, on the assum]^> 

 tion of the existence of a series of customs and institutions antecedent to the state 

 of marriage between single pairs, of which the Hawaiian custom is one. Fifthly. 

 Whether or not the present existence of such a system as that found amongst the 

 American Indian nations furnishes, in itself, conclusive evidence that it was derived 

 by each and all from a common source ; and, therefore, that the nations themselves 

 are of common origin ; or, in other words, whether the genealogical connection of 

 certain nations may be inferred from the fact of their joint possession of this par- 

 ticular system of relationship, the radical characteristics of which are found to be 

 constant and identical amongst them all. Sixthly. Whether or not the genealogical 

 connection of two or more families, separately constituted upon the basis of such a 

 system, may be inferred from their joint possession of the same, when these 

 families are found in disconnected areas. And lastly. W'hen the forms which 

 prevail in different families are to a limited extent radically the same, whether any, 

 and what, inference may be drawn from this partial identity. Upon these several 

 propositions, which are believed to comprehend the material facts contained in 

 the Tables, some observations will be submitted, as a proper conclusion to this 

 investigation. 



I. How many systems of consanguinity and affinity, radically distinct from each 

 other, do the Tables present] 



In a general sense there are but two, the descriptive and the dassificatonj. Of 

 the first, the Celtic, and of the second, the Seneca-Iroquois is an example. They 

 rest upon conceptions fundamentally different, and are separated from each other 

 by a line so clearly defined as to admit of no misapprehension. In the first, which 

 is the form of the Aryan, Semitic, and Uralian families, consanguine! are, in the 

 main, described by a combination of the primary terms of relationship, the colla- 

 teral lines are maintained distinct and divergent from the lineal, and the few 

 special terms employed are restricted to particular persons, and to those nearest in 

 degree. The generalizations of kindred into classes, with special terms to express 

 the relationships, are few in number, wei'e an aftergrowth in point of time, and are 

 exceptional in the system. These facts have been shown in previous chapters. 

 The original system of these families, or rather their present system in its origin, 

 was purely descriptive, as it appears from the Sanskritic when it ceased to be a 

 living form, and as it is still exemplified by the Celtic and the Scandinavian forms 

 in the Aryan family, by the Arabic in the Semitic family, and by the Esthonian in 

 the Uralian. As a system it is based upon a true and logical appreciation of the 

 natural outflow of the streams of the blood, of the distinctiveness and perpetual 

 divergence of these several streams, and of the difference in degree, numerically. 



