4()6 SYSTEMS OF CONSANGUINITY AND AFFINITY 



the aboriginal terms ; and the fact is rendered still more extraordinary by the pre- 

 sumption that the native idioms were opulent in terms of relationship, however 

 scant in other vocables. Out of twenty-two radical terms in the nomenclature, 

 exclusive of Tau, Mr. Scott was able to recognize but three of undoubted origin 

 in the aboriginal speech. To these it is suggested that Mdmu, maternal uncle, 

 should probably be added, which, aside from the difficulty of deriving it from the 

 Sanskrit Matul, may prove to be from the same root as Mamdn of the Tamil, 

 Mama, of the Bengali, and Mara, of the Canarese dialect, for the same relation- 

 ship. Four of the indicative features of the Turanian system are involved in the 

 relationship of the father's and mother's brothers and sisters. The presence of 

 aboriginal terms for one, and perhaps two of these relationships, and the qualifica- 

 tions which attach to the other two reveal distinct traces of the Turanian system. 

 We must suppose that the principal point of controversy between the Aryan and 

 Turanian or aboriginal form was upon the classification of kindred. Upon the 

 assumption of the existence of marriage between single pairs, the former was true 

 to the nature of descents, whilst the latter was false in respect to it in more than 

 half of its provisions. If the latter system was originally true to the nature of 

 descents through compound marriages or a custom of wide-spread cohabitation 

 amongst relatives, and it had survived the epoch in which society had extricated 

 itself from this condition, and had reached the marriage relation between single 

 pairs, the system itself would have been vulnerable upon this part of the classifica- 

 tion. The reasons for calling a father's brother a father, and a mother's sister a 

 mother ; and also for a man calling his brother's son his son, and a woman calling 

 her sister's son her son could not be defended (the causes justifying this classification 

 having disappeared), when it was resisted and questioned by a portion of the people 

 speaking the same language and desiring a common system. And yet the surrender 

 of the Turanian and the adoption of the Aryan system, or the reverse, would not be 

 expected, but rather a modification of both into one resulting system. Such appears 

 to have been the issue of the conflict between the two antagonistic forms. Traces 

 of compromise are seen throughout its details. The principal points in which it 

 has been influenced from each source may be briefly stated as follows. 



In the first place the Hindi system is classificatory. Consanguinei are arranged 

 in an arbitrary manner under a few principal relationships, or into a limited num- 

 ber of great classes, without regard, in most cases, to nearness or remoteness in 

 degree, or to the obvious divergence of the streams of the blood. This is distinct- 

 ively Turanian. 



Secondly. The son of a man's brother becomes his nephew instead of his son ; 

 and as if to mark the falsity of the Turanian classification, the Sanskrit term em- 

 it is not surprising that they have moulded the Sanskrit, into what we now find it in Hindi, with an 

 infusion of 'words of their own. 



" On the question whether the system of consanguinity has followed that of the Aryan, or of the 

 original race, I am not able to judge. From the Table it will be manifest that the words have been 

 mostly taken from the Sanskrit, with a small element from the original language. This, however, is 

 what might have been expected. The aboriginal system may have remained notwithstanding." 



