496 SYSTEMS OF CONSANGUINITY AND AFFINITY 



of time between each which this sequence presupposes, and finally have wrought 

 out, by organic growth and development, the same identical system of relationship. 

 The length of time required would far outrun any supposable period during Avhich 

 these stocks have maintained an independent existence. The terms in the several 

 Dakota dialects are still the same original words changed dialectically, thus fur- 

 nishing conclusive proof that both the system and the terms were derived imme- 

 diately by each from a common parent nation. If the inquiry were extended so 

 as to include the remaining nations speaking dialects of the same stock language, 

 the same conclusion would be obtained, thus moving back the system to a point of 

 time coeval with the first appearance of the parent nation from which they were 

 severally derived. The antiquity of the Iroquois and Dakota systems being thus 

 established, the inference arises that it was derived by each stock from some other 

 stock back of both, from which they were alike descended ; and that it had been 

 transmitted with the blood to the several bi'anches of each. When the Iroquois 

 and Dakota forms are placed side by side every thought and principle embodied 

 in each ring out an audible affirmation of their descent from a common original. 



Turning northward, we next enter that portion of the Algonkin area occupied 

 l)y the Ojibwas and the Crees, and having ascertained their system of relationship, 

 it is, in like manner, spread out upon diagrams. A third stock language is now 

 before us. The terms of relationship are equally numerous but each and all of 

 them differ from the corresponding Seneca and Dakota terms. Moreover, whilst 

 there is a slight, and perhaps traceable, family resemblance between the Seneca and 

 Dakota nomenclatures, the Cree and Ojibwa are so pointedly unlike them as to 

 stand in marked contrast. Yet the personal relationships, -with deviations in un- 

 essential particulars, are the same. Every indicative feature of the common 

 system is present, and the greater part of its subordinate details. There is no 

 possibility of mistaking in each the same fundamental conceptions. The system 

 exists in full vigor and in constant practical use. To the same question concerning 

 its origin a similar answer is given. In these dialects the terms of relationship are 

 the same words, dialectically changed, which proves, as in the other cases, that 

 they inherited the system, with the terms, from a common parent nation. If the 

 inquiry were extended so as to include the remaining Algonkin nations, the same 

 results would be reached, namely, that it was transmitted to each with the blood 

 from the parent Algonkin nation. Its great antiquity in this stock is thus 

 established. Up to this stage of the inquiry the number of special features which 

 are identical in the three forms of the system, beyond those which are radical, is 

 very great. Hence the possibility of simultaneous invention, or of spontaneous 

 growth decreases with the increase of the number of these special characteristics 

 which are constant. There are now three distinct and independent currents of 

 Indian speech, each subdivided into a large number of dialects, which are found 

 to possess the system in all its fulness and complexity ; thus leading us, by a three- 

 told chain of testimony, to refer the system, the languages, and the peoples to a 

 common original source. This carries back the system to a point of time coeval 

 with the separation and development of these three currents of language. 



The same course of statement and of inference may be applied to each of the 



