228 ETHNOLOGY, 



three removes from the common ancestor, in most cases, and in four, absolutely^ 

 this result was effected. It was accomplished by bringing the degrees of relation- 

 ship nearer to each other than they are in the civil or the canon law. Thus a 

 mother and her sisters stood equally in the relation of mothers to the children of 

 each other; the grandmother and her sisters were equally grandmothers, the 

 father and his brothers were fathers, the grandfather and his brothers were grand- 

 fathers to the children of each other, and so up in the ascending series. The 

 children of two sisters were the children equally of each other, and the grand- 

 children of the one were the grandchildren of the other, and so down in the 

 descending series. On the side of two brothers the degrees were reckoned in the 

 same manner. A difference, however, was made between the children of a brother 

 and the children of a sister, in their relationship to each other. Thus the children 

 of two sisters were brothers and sisters to each other ; they were all of the same 

 tribe. So also were the children of two brothers, although they might be of 

 different tribes. But the children of a brother and the children of a sister were 

 cousis, as in the civil law ; they were necessarily of different tribes. The sister 

 was aunt to the brother's children, and the brother was uncle to the sister's, and 

 the children of these nephews and nieces were the grandchildren equally of each. 

 Again, the cousins themselves were interchangeably either uncles and aunts, or 

 fathers and mothers, to the children of each other, and grandfathers and grand- 

 mothers to their children. By this simple process of reckoning degrees, the sub* 

 division of a family into collateral bi'anches was rendered impossible. A cousin 

 who stands in the fourth degree of the civil law was the most remote collateral 

 recognized in their code of descent, or rather, allowed from the lineal line. 



" The grandchildren of the two sisters were also brcjthers and sisters to each 

 other; and the descendants of two sisters standing in equal degrees from their 

 respective ancestral heads, continued to be brothers and sisters to the remotest 

 generation. The name of the relationship was changed from brother and sister 

 to a descriptive term ; but yet they recognized each other as brother and sister. 

 With the descendants of two brothers the rule was the same. But the descend- 

 ants of a brother and the descendents of a sister continued in like manner to be 

 cousins ; this last degree being as far asunder as it was possible for the descend- 

 ants of brothers and sisters to fall, under the system of the Iroquois. In case one 

 was farther removed from the ancestral head than the other, the rule which changed 

 the collateral into the lineal line at once applied ; thus the son of the son of my 

 father's sister, or my cousin's son, becomes my nephew, and the son of this nephew 

 becomes my grandson. In like manner, the son of the son of my mother's sister 

 becomes my nephew, although his father was my brother. Eor this last result, 

 the reason is apparent — this nephew is necessarily out of my tribe; but the reason 

 for the same rule in the esse of a cousin's son is not apparent. For example : 



j 

 Description of Relationship. Name in Seneca Iroquois, i Same in English.. 



My father's sister's son, Ah-gare'-seh, Cousin, 



do do son's wife, Ah-geah'-ne a, Siiterin-law. 



do do daughter, Ah-gare'-seh, Cousin, 



do do daughter's husband, JIa-ya'-o, Brkher-in-law. 



