478 SYSTEMS OF CONSANGUINITY AND AFFINITY 



claim, or yield it to another.' Taking such a case of polygamy as an illustration, 

 the children of sisters thus married would naturally apply to each other the full 

 terms for brother and sister. They are own brothers and sisters with respect to 

 their father, and half-brothers and half-sisters with respect to the wives of their 

 father, one of whom is their mother. This might»cxplain one of the most import- 

 ant indicative features of the system. Advancing a step beyond this, the children 

 of one sister might apply the term mother to each sister of their mother, 

 although the true relationship is neither that of mother, nor strictly that of step- 

 mother, since the own mother is still living. Assuming this to have occurred, it 

 would give a second indicative feature. For the same reason it might be supposed 

 that the several sisters would call each other's children their sons and daughters, 

 which would explain the origin of half of a third indicative feature. Here the 

 influence of this form of polygamy, which may or may not have existed in other 

 families of mankind, terminates. Turning next to the Thibetan form of polyandria, 

 where several brothers have children by a common wife, these children would 

 necessarily cull themselves brothers and sisters, first because they are such with 

 respect to their mother, and, secondly, because with respect to the several brothers 

 Avho are the husbands of their mother, it would be unknown which of them was 

 their father. This would explain the probable origin of a fourth indicative rela- 

 tionship. Again, these children would call the several husbands of their mother 

 indiscriminately fathers. If they so called either one, then all would receive the 

 appellation. For the same reasons the several brothers would call these children 

 their sons and daughters without distinction, thus explaining a fifth and sixth in- 

 dicative relationship, as well as a seventh and eighth with more or less distinctness, 

 namely, that the children of these children would be called grandchildren by each 

 of these brothers, and be called grandfothers in return. Here the influence of 

 polyandria ceases. It will be seen that these special forms of polygamy and 

 polyandria approach the system very closely, and tend to render it explainable as 

 a natural system drawn from the nature of descents as they actually existed at the 

 time the system was formed. But it must be remembered, first, that these rela- 

 tionships are the same in the ^lalayau, Turanian, and Ganowanian forms ; secondly, 

 that they are not indicative relationships in the Malayan system ; and thirdly, that 

 they become such in the latter by virtue of the remaining indicative relationships, 

 which polygamy and polyandria are incapable of explaining. Why my mother's 

 brother is my uncle, my father's sister is my aunt, my sister's son and daughter. 

 Ego a male, are my nephew and niece, and why the children of this micle and 

 aunt are placed in the more remote relationship of cousin, still remain unexplained. 

 At the same time, it is to these relationships that the Ganowanian and Turanian 

 systems are indebted for their striking characteristics. But there is another and a 

 general objection to the sufficiency of these customs to explain the origin of those 

 parts of the system first above named. It is their restriction in practice to a small 

 portion of the people. The number of children of sisters, and also of brothers, in 



' I have found this practice among the Shyannes, Oiualias, lowas, Kaws, Osages, Blackfeet, Creos, 

 Minnitarees, Crows, and several other nations. 



