494 SYSTEMS OF CONSANGUINITY AND AFFINITY 



question will at once arise, namely, whether any limit would exist to ttie constant 

 reproduction of the system in barbarous nations. Should its reproduction in dis- 

 connected areas become even probable, the system must lose its value for certain 

 branches of ethnological investigation. The discussion of this question belongs in 

 another connection. It may be remarked, however, that the adoption of this 

 sequence of customs and institutions to explain its origin from the nature of 

 descents, plants ihe roots of the system in the primitive ages of mankind. It then 

 follows it down to the epoch of the institution of the tribal organization which 

 perfected the Turanian form, since which time it has, in all probability, been a 

 transmitted system to all the descendants of the Turanian family. 



V. Does the present existence of such a system as that found amongst the 

 American Indian nations furnish, 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, can the genealogical connection of 

 certain nations be inferred from the fact of their joint possession of this particular 

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

 and identical amongst them all ^ 



"Whether this system can be made of any use for the purposes named must 

 depend Tipon the stability of its radical forms, and upon its power of self-perpetua- 

 tion. If these are found to be attributes of the system it will lead the way to far- 

 reaching and important conclusions. There is no occasion to assume either the 

 stability or the self-perpetuating power of these radical forms. The Table contains 

 abundant material to test the system in both these respects ; either to overthrow its 

 testimony or to place it upon a solid foundation. "Whether this system of relation- 

 ship may be employed in corroboration of other evidence tending to establish the 

 unity of origin of the American Indian nations is not the question ; but whether, 

 as principal evidence thereof it is convincing and conclusive. The number of 

 truths implicitly accepted, which rest upon mathematical demonstration, are few in 

 number compared with those which are received with equal confidence when drawn 

 by legitimate deduction from sufiicient premises. "Up to a certain point, which is 

 far enough advanced to include the great practical questions svibmitted to individual 

 judgment, the processes of moral reasoning are as trustworthy as those of mathe- 

 matical reasoning, and their results not less conclusive. Conclusions thus founded 

 enforce their own acceptance. In disposing of the questions, now under considera- 

 tion, the quantity and quality of the evidence must be the same that would be 

 required to form an opinion in any other case. 



If, then, as a matter of research, the system of relationship of the Seneca- 

 Iroquois were taken up, it would be our first care to trace it out in its entire range, 

 and to acquaint ourselves with its structure and principles. "When the contents of 

 the system are mastered we ask the Senecas from whence its was obtained, and 

 they answer: ""We and our ancestors before us have used it from time immemorial; 

 it has remained unchanged within the period to which our knowledge extends ; it 

 answers every want a system of relationship could supply ; and we know nothing 

 of its origin." We next pursue the inquiry in the five remaining Iroquois nations, 

 amongst whom we find the same elaborate and stupendous system in fidl operation. 



