220 SYSTEMS OP CONSANGUINITY AND AFFINITY 



ful rate generally supposed. Many Indians, indeed, were destroyed in the wars 

 of colonization ; and many others perished through vices contracted by contact 

 with civilization ; T)ut those nations, of which no trace now remains, were rather 

 broken up and dispersed among kindred people than annihilated. This process of 

 dispersion and absorption .has been going on continuously from the commencement 

 of the career of the Ganowanian family upon the North American continent. It 

 has resulted in known instances, since the epoch of colonization, from wars waged 

 amongst themselves-, as in the case of the Eries and Neutral Nation dispersed by 

 the Iroquois ; and in wars waged by the colonists, as in the case of the Natchez 

 Indians, supposed to have been exterminated by the French, but now incorporated 

 with the Creeks. A reinvestigation of the facts with reference to the numbers and 

 means of subsistence of the American aborigines is necessary to correct the current 

 impressions on these subjects. 



In the Table will be found the systems of relationship of the Micmacs, Etche- 

 mins, Mohegans, Delawares, and Munsees. They represent the northern, the 

 central, and the southern subdivisions of the eastern Algonkins. All that was pecu- 

 liar in the system of these nations will presumptively he found in the forms given 

 in the Table. 



1. Delawares. The Delawares are undoubtedly one of the oldest of the Algon- 

 kin nations, and are so recognized by their congeners. They are styled " grand- 

 fathers" by the greater portion of these nations, both eastern and western, which 

 of itself is significant of the fact. Their dialect has departed very widely from 

 the common standards. They are now established upon a reservation in Kansas, 

 and numbered in 1855, nine hundred persons. Through missionary instruction 

 and agricultural pursuits, they have made as much progress as the Shawnees. 



First Indicative Feature in their system of relationship. My brother's son and 

 daughter, Ego a male, are my son and daughter, N'-kweese', and N'-da-nuss'. 

 With Ego a female, they are the same. These last relationships, which are a de- 

 parture from the common form, result from the absence of the relationship of aunt. 



Second. .My sister's son and daughter, Ego a male, are my nephew and niece, 

 Longue'-lcw' and Lonyu&-Jcwa' . With Ego a female, they are my son and daughter. 



Third. My father's brother is my little father, Noh'-tut. 



Fourth. My father's brother's son and daughter are my step-brother and step- 

 sister, the males and females using different terms, Nee-ma'-tus and N'-doh--kwa- 

 yome' (m. s.), N'-dun-oo-yome' , and Neet-hoh''-7cw' (f. s.) 



Fifth. Wanting. My father's sister is my mother. 



Sixth. My mother's brother is my uncle, 2tf'-sJied-se. 



.Seventh. My mother's sister is my little mother, N'-gd-ha'-tut. 



Eighth. My mother's sister's son and daughter are my step-brother and my step- 

 sister, the males and the females using different terms. 



Ninth. My grandfather's brother is my grandfather, Niv-moh-' -ho-mus' . 



Tenth. The grandchildren of my brothers and sisters, and of my step-brothers 

 and step-sisters are, without distinction, my grandchildren. 



There are three peculiar features in the system of the Delawares, two of which 

 are now met with for the first time. In the first place, the relationship of aunt is 



