OF THE UUMAN FAMILY. 495 



The same question is asked of each of these nations, and the same answer is given. 

 Two other facts arc now determined ; first, that the system exists in six nations 

 speaking as n^any dialects of a common stock language ; and second, that the 

 terms of relationsliip are the same original words dialectically changed. From 

 these facts the first inference arises, namely, that they severally obtained the system, 

 with the common terms, from the parent nation from which they were derived. 

 Next we turn to the Wyandotes or ancient Hurons, who spoke another dialect of 

 the same stock language, but who are known to have been detached from the 

 Iroquois political connection for several centuries. Amongst them we find not 

 only the same system, but, also, the same nomenclature of relationsliips, almost 

 terra for term, changed dialectically like the other vocables of the language. From 

 this fact comes a second inference, corroborative of the first, and reaching back 

 of it in point of time, namely, that tlie Wyandotes and the Iroquois derived the 

 system, with the terms, from a common parent nation, and that it had been trans- 

 mitted to each with the streams of the blood. Since the forms of the system 

 among these nations are radically the same it follows that the system was coeval, in 

 point of time, with the existence of a single original nation from which they are 

 mediately or immediately derived. We thus obtain our first impression of its sta- 

 bility as a domestic institution, as it can now claim an antiquity of several centuries, 

 and also a verification of its mode of transmission. Up to this point the argument 

 for its stability, for its antiquity, and for its mode of transmission is corroborated 

 by the parallel argument from unity of language. 



Having thus traced the system throughout one stock language, we next cross the 

 Mississippi and enter the area of the Dakotas. It is a change from the forest to 

 the prairie, begetting, to some extent, a change in the mode of life. Here we find 

 twelve or more nations, in embryo, occupying an area of immense extent. We 

 take up their system of relationship and spread it out, in its several lines, upon 

 diagrams, and then compare it with the Seneca-Iroquois. Every term of relation- 

 ship, with perhaps two exceptions, are diff'erent from the corresponding Seneca 

 terms ; so completely transformed, indeed, that no " letter changes," however in- 

 genious, can break through the indurated crust produced by the lapse of centuries. 

 Although the words have lost the power to avow their common parentage with the 

 Seneca, the relationships of persons are still the same. Every indicative feature 

 of the Seneca system is found in the Dakota. This is not only true with reference 

 to fundamental particulars, but throughout their minute details the two systems 

 are identical with unimportant exceptions. If the same question is asked the 

 Dakotas with reference to the origin of the system, the same answer will be received. 

 Having now crossed the barrier which separates one stock language from another; 

 and found the system present as well as intact in each, the question arises how 

 shall this fact be explained 1 The several hypotheses of accidental concurrent in- 

 vention, of borrowing from each other, and of spontaneous groAvth are entirely 

 inadequate. Of these hypotheses the first two need no discussion, and the third 

 may be disposed of with the single remark that it is not possible these two Indian 

 stocks should have passed independently through the same identical experiences, 

 developing the same sequence of customs and institutions with the long intervals 



