476 SYSTEMS OF C N S A N.GU I N I T Y AND AFFINITY 



their cliildren are of the same tribe, and these children are brothers and sisters 

 to each other in virtue of tlieir common tribal name. They are also brothers 

 and sisters under this system of relationship. It is at least a plausible supposition 

 that the tribal connection, superadded to their nearness of kin as the children of 

 sisters, might have suggested the relationship of brother and sister as eminently 

 proper, and thus have laid the foundation of one of the indicative features of the 

 system. The same thought developed a step further might, from analogy, establish 

 the two sisters in the relation of a mother to each other's children, which would 

 give a second indicative feature of the system. But these influences are set aside 

 by running the parallel in other cases. Thus two brothers, born of the same 

 mother, are of the same tribe; but since they must marry out of the tribe, and 

 since descent is in the female line, their children are of a different tribe from them- 

 selves, and seven chances out of eight of two different tribes, each differing from 

 their own, and yet their children who are not tribal brothers and sisters are such 

 under the system. If the principle of the tribal connection suggested these rela- 

 tionships in the former case, it would, for the want of that connection, forbid it in 

 the latter. Again, Ego being a female, my sister's sou is my son ; we are also 

 both of the same tribe, whilst my brother's son, who is not of my tribe, is placed in 

 the more remote relationship of nephew. Conformity Avith the tribal connection is 

 here preserved. But on the other hand, with Ego a male, my brother's son is my son, 

 although he is not of my tribe, whilst my sister's son, who is of my tribe, stands 

 in the more remote relationship of nephew. Conformity with the tribal organiza- 

 tion is here disregarded. To the same effect it may be added that my father's 

 brother, who is not of my tribe, is my father ; whilst my mother's brother, who is 

 of my tribe, is placed in the more remote relationship of uncle. Contrariwise, my 

 father's sister, who is not of my tribe, is my aunt; whilst my mother's sister, who 

 is of my tribe, is my mother. It thus appears when the tribal relationships are 

 run parallel with those established by the system that the former traverse the latter 

 quite as frequently as they affirm the connection. This will be found to be the 

 case throughout the entire range of the system. In some Indian nations descent 

 is in the male line, in which cases the tribal relationships, as above given, would be 

 reversed ; in still others it does not now exist, and yet the same system of relation- 

 ship prevails amongst them all alike, irrespective of the existence or non-existence 

 ;of the tribal organization, and whether descent is in the male or female line. 

 There is, however, another aspect of the case in which this tribal organization, as 

 one of a series of institutions affecting the conditions of society, may have exer- 

 cised a decisive influence upon the formation of the classificatory system. This 

 will be considered in another connection. 



Among existing customs which touch the domestic relationships, and tlius become 

 sources of influence upon the system, arc polygamy and polyaudria. They are in- 

 capable of explaining, from the nature of descents, the origin of tlie classificatory 

 system as a whole ; but they seem to afford an explanation of one or more of its 

 indicative features. Inasmuch as polygamy has prevailed, more or less, amongst 

 the principal nations of mankind in the early periods of their history, and since it 

 is an existing custom in a large number of nations at the present time, the nature 



