Ancient Society. Lewis H. Morgan 1877

Chapter II
The Consanguine Family

The existence of the Consanguine family unit must be proved by other evidence than the production of the family itself. As the first and most ancient, form of the institution, it has ceased to exist even among the lowest tribes of savages. It belongs to a condition of society out, of which the least advanced portion of the human race have emerged. Single instances of the marriage of a brother and sister in barbarous and even in civilized nations have occurred within the historical period, but this is very different from the intermarriage of a number of them in a group, in a state of society in which such marriages predominated and formed the basis of a social system. There are tribes of savages in the Polynesian and Papuan Islands, and in Australia, seemingly not far removed from the primitive state; hut they have advanced beyond the condition the consanguine family implies. Where, then, it may be asked, is the evidence that such a family ever existed among mankind? Whatever proof is adduced must be conclusive, otherwise the proposition is not established. It is found in a system of consanguinity and affinity which has outlived for unnumbered centuries the marriage customs in which it originated, and which remains to attest the fact, that such a family existed when the system was formed.

That system is the Malayan. It defines the relationships that would exist in a consanguine family; and it demands the existence of such a family to account for its own existence. Moreover, it proves with moral certainty the existence of a consanguine family when the system was formed.

This system, which is the most archaic yet discovered, will now be taken up for the purpose of showing, from its relationships, the principal facts stated. This family, also, is the most archaic form of the institution of which any knowledge remains.

Such a remarkable record of the condition of ancient society would not have been preserved to the present time but for the singular permanence of systems of consanguinity. The Aryan system, for example, has stood near three thousand years without radical change, and would endure a hundred thousand years in the future, provided the monogamian family, whose relationships it defines, should so long remain. It describes the relationships which actually exist under monogamy, and is therefore incapable of change, so long as the family remains as at present constituted. 1f a new form of the family should appear among Aryan nations, it would not affect the present system of consanguinity until after it became universal; and while in that case it, might modify the system in some particulars, it would not overthrow it; unless the new family were radically different from the monogamian. It was precisely the same with its immediate predecessor, the Turanian system, and before that with the Malayan, the predecessor of the Turanian in the order of derivative growth. An antiquity of unknown duration may be assigned to the Malayan system which came in with the consanguine family, remained for an indefinite period after the punaluan family appeared, and seems to have been displaced in other tribes by the Turanian, with the establishment of the organization into gentes.

The inhabitants of Polynesia are included in the Malayan family. Their system of consanguinity has been called the Malayan, although the Malays proper have modified their own in some particulars. Among the Hawaiians and other Polynesian tribes there still exists in daily use a system of, consanguinity which is given in the Table, and may be pronounced the oldest known among mankind. The Hawaiian and Rotuman[1] forms are used as typical of the system. It is the simplest, and therefore the oldest form, of the classificatory system, and reveals the primitive form on which the Turanian and Ganowanian were afterwards engrafted.

It is evident that the Malayan could not have been derived from any existing system, because there is none, of which any conception can be formed, more elementary. The only blood relationships recognized are the primary, which are five in number, without distinguishing sex. All consanguinei, near and remote, are classified under these relation- ships into five categories. Thus, myself, my brothers and. sisters, and my first, second, third, and more remote male and female cousins, are the first grade or category. All these, without distinction, are my brothers and sisters. The word cousin, is here used in our sense, the relationship being unknown in Polynesia. My father and mother, together with their brothers and sisters, and their first, second and more remote cousins, are the second grade. All these, without distinction, are my parents. My grandfathers and grandmothers, on the father’s side and on the mother’s side, with their brothers and sisters, and their several cousins are the third grade. All these are my grandparent. Below me, my sons and daughters, with their several cousins as before, are the fourth grade. All these, without distinction, are my children. My grandsons and granddaughters, with their several cousins, are the fifth grade. All these in like manner are my grandchildren. Moreover, all the individuals of the same grade are brothers and sisters to each other. In this manner all the possible kindred of my given person are brought into five categories; each person applying to every other person in the same category with himself or herself the same term of relationship. Particular attention is invited to the five grades of relations in the Malayan system, because the same classification appears in the “Nine Grades of Relations” of the Chinese, which are extended so as to include two additional ancestors and two additional descendants, as will elsewhere be shown. A fundamental connection between the two systems is thus discovered.

There are terms in Hawaiian for grandparent, Kupuna; for parent; Makua; for child, Kaikee; and for grandchild, Moopuna. Gender is expressed by adding the terms Kana, for male, and waheena, for female; thus, Kupuna Kana = grandparent male, and Kupuna, Waheena, grandparent female. They are equivalent to grandfather, and. grandmother, and express these relationships in the concrete. Ancestors and descendants, above and below those named, are distinguished numerically, as first, second, third, when it is necessary to be specific; but in common usage Kupuna is applied to all persons above grandparent, and Moopuna is applied to all descendants below grandchild.

The relationships of brother and sister are conceived in the twofold form of elder and younger, and separate terms are applied to each; but it is not carried out with entire completeness. Thus, in Hawaiian, from which the illustrations will be taken, we have:

Elder Brother, Male Speaking, “Kaikuaana.” Female Speaking, “Kaikunana.”

Younger Brother, Male Speaking, “Kaikaina.” Female Speaking, “Kaikunana.”

Elder Sister, Male Speaking, “Kaikuwaheena.” Female Speaking, “Kaikuaana.”

Younger Sister, Male Speaking, “Kaikuwaheena.” Female Speaking, “Kaikaina."[2]

It will be observed Chat a man calls his elder brother Kaikuaana, and that a woman calls her elder sister the same; that a man calls his younger brother Kaikaina, and a woman calls her younger sister the same: hence these terms are in common gender, and suggest the same idea found in the Karen system, namely, that of predecessor and successor in birth.[3] A single term is used by the males for elder and younger sister, and a single term by the females for elder and younger brother. It thus appears that while a man’s brothers are classified into elder and younger, his sisters are not, and, while a woman’s sisters are classified into elder and younger, her brothers are not. A double set of terms are thus developed, one of which is used by the males and the other by the females, a peculiarity which reappears in the system of a number of Polynesian tribes. Among savage and. barbarous tribes the relationships of brother and sister are seldom conceived in the abstract.

The substance of the system is contained in the five categories of consanguinei; but there are special features to be noticed which will require the presentation in detail of the first three collateral lines. After these are shown the connection of the system with the intermarriage of brothers and sisters, own and collateral, in a group, will appear in the relationships themselves.

First collateral line. In the male branch, with myself a male, the children of my brother, speaking as a Hawaiian, are my sons and daughters, each of them calling me father; and the children of the latter are my grandchildren, each of them calling me grandfather. In the female branch my sister’s children are my sons and daughters, each of them calling me father; and their children are my grandchildren, each of them calling me grandfather.

With myself a female, the relationships of the persons above named are the same in both branches, with corresponding changes for sex. The husbands and wives of these several sons and daughters are my sons-in-law and daughters-in-law; the terms being used in common gender, and having the terms for male and female added to each respectively.

Second collateral line. In the male branch on the father’s side my father’s brother is my father, and calls me his son; his children are my brothers and sisters, elder or younger; their children are my sons and daughters; and the children of the latter are my grandchildren, each of them in the preceding and succeeding cases applying to me the proper correlative. My father’s sister is my mother; her children are my brothers and sisters, elder or younger; their children are my sons and daughters; and the children of the latter are my grandchildren.

In the same line on the mother’s side my mother’s brother is my father; his children are my brothers and sisters; their children are my sons and daughters; and the children of the latter are my grandchildren. My mother’s sister is my mother; her children are my brothers and sisters; their children are my sons and daughters; and the children of the later are my grandchildren. The relationships of the persons named in all the branches of this and the succeeding lines are the same with myself a female.

The wives of the several brothers, own and collateral, are my wives as well as theirs. When addressing either one of them, I call her my wife, employing the usual term to express that connection. The husbands of these several women, jointly such with myself, are my brothers-in-law. With myself, a female the husbands of my several sisters, own and collateral, are my husbands as well as theirs. When addressing either of them, I use the common term for husband. The wives of these several husbands, who are jointly such with myself, are my sisters-in-law.

Third collateral line. In the male branch of this line on the father’s side, my grandfather’s brother is my grandfather; his children are my fathers and mothers; their children are my brothers and sisters, elder or younger; the children of the latter are my sons and daughters; and their children are my grandchildren; My grandfather’s sister is my grandmother; and her children and descendants follow in the same relationships as in the last case.

In the same line on the mother’s side, my grandmother’s brother is my grandfather; his sister is my grandmother; and their respective children and descendants fall into the same categories as those in the first branch of this line.

The marriage relationships are the same in this as in the second collateral line, thus increasing largely the number united in the bonds of marriage.

As far as consanguinei can he traced in the ore remote collateral lines, the system, which is all-embracing, is the same in its classifications. Thus, my great-grandfather in the fourth collateral line is my grandfather; his son is my grandfather also; the son of the latter is my father; his son is my brother, elder or younger, and his son and grandson are my son and grandson. It will he observed that the several collateral lines are brought into and merged in the lineal line, ascending as well as descending; so that the ancestors and descendants of my collateral brothers and sisters become mine as well as theirs. This is one of the characteristics of the classificatory system. None of the kindred are lost. From the simplicity of the system it may be seen how readily the relationships of consanguinei are known and recognized, and how a knowledge of them is preserved from generation to generation. A single rule furnishes an illustration: the children of brothers are themselves brothers and sisters; the children of the latter are brothers and sisters; and so downward indefinitely. It is the same with the children and descendant of sisters, and of brothers and sisters.

All the members of each grade are reduced to the same level in their relationships without, regard to nearness or remoteness in numerical degrees; those in each grade standing to Ego in an identical relationship. It follows, also, that knowledge of the numerical degrees formed an integral part of the Hawaiian system, without which the proper grade of each person could not be known The simple and distinctive character of the system will arrest attention, pointing with such directness as it does, to the intermarriage of brothers and sisters, own and collateral, in a group, as the source from whence it sprung.

Poverty of language or indifference to relationships exercised no influence whatever upon the formation of the system, as will appear in the sequel.

The system, as were detailed, is found in other Polynesian tribes besides the Hawaiians and Rotumans, as among the Marquesas Islanders, and the Maoris of New Zealand. It prevails, also, among the Samoans, Kusaiens, and King’s Mill Islanders of Micronesia[5] and without a doubt in every inhabited island of the Pacific, except where it verges upon the Turanian.

From this system the antecedent, existence of the consanguine family, with the kind of marriage appertaining thereto, is plainly deducible. Presumptively it is a natural and real system, expressing the relationships which actually existed when the system was formed, as near as the parentage of children could be known. The usages with respect to marriage which then prevailed may not prevail at the present time. To sustain the deduction it is not necessary that they should. Systems of consanguinity, as before stated, are found to remain substantially unchanged and in full vigour long after the marriage customs in which they originated have in part or wholly passed away. The small number of independent systems of consanguinity created during the extended period of human experience is sufficient proof of their permanence. They are found not 4o change except in connection with great epochs of progress. For the purpose of explaining the origin of the Malayan system, from the nature of descents, we are at liberty to assume the antecedent intermarriage of own and collateral brothers and sisters in a group; and if it is then found that the principal relation- ships recognized are those that would actually exist under this form of marriage, then the system itself becomes evidence conclusive of the existence of such marriages. It is plainly inferable that the system originated in plural marriages of consanguinei, including own brothers and sisters; in fact commenced with the intermarriage of the latter, and gradually enfolded the collateral brothers and sisters as the range of the conjugal system widened. In course of time the evils of the first form of marriage came to be perceived, leading, if not to its directed abolition, to a preference for wives beyond this degree. Among the Australians i4 was permanently abolished by the organization into classes, and more widely among the Turanian tribes by the organization into gentes. It is impossible to explain the system as a natural growth upon any other hypothesis than the one named, since this form of marriage alone can furnish a key to its interpretation. In the consanguine family, thus constituted, the husbands lived in polygyny, and the wives in polyandry, which are seen to be as ancient as human society. Such a family was neither unnatural nor remarkable. It would be difficult to show any other possible beginning of the family in the primitive period. Its long continuance in a partial form among the tribes of mankind is the greater cause for surprise; for all traces of it had not disappeared among the Hawaiians at the epoch of their discovery.

The explanation of the origin of the Malayan system given in this chapter, and of the Turanian and Ganowanian given in the next, have been questioned and denied by Mr. John F, McLennan, author of “Primitive Marriage.” I see no occasion, however, to modify the views herein presented, which are the same substantially as those given in “Systems of Consanguinity,” etc. But I ask the attention of the reader to the interpretation here repeated, and to a note at the end of Chapter VI, in which Mr. McLennan’s objections are considered.

If the recognized relationships in the Malayan system are now tested by this form of marriage, it will he found that they rest upon the intermarriage of own and collateral brothers and sisters in a group.

It should be remembered that the relationships which grow out of the family organization are of two kinds: those of blood determined by descents, and those of affinity determined by marriage. Since in the consanguine family there are two distinct groups of persons, one of fathers and one of mothers, the affiliation of the children to both groups would be so strong that the distinction between relationships by blood and by affinity would not be recognized in the system in every case.

I. All the children of my several brothers, myself a male, are my sons and daughters.

Reason: Speaking as a Hawaiian, all the wives of my several brothers are my wives as well as theirs. As it would be impossible for me to distinguish my own children from those of my brothers, if I call my one my child, I must call them all my children. One is as likely to be mine as another.

II. All the grandchildren of my several brothers are my grandchildren.

Reason: They are the children of my sons and daughters.

III. With myself a female the foregoing relationships are the same. This is purely a question of relationship by marriage. My several brothers being my husbands, their children by other wives would be my step-children, which relationship being unrecognized, they naturally fall into the category of my sons and daughters. Otherwise they would pass without the system. Among ourselves a step-mother is called mother, and a step-son a son.

VI. All the children of my several sisters, own and collateral, myself a male, are my sons and daughters.

Reason: All my sisters are my wives, as well as the wives of my several brothers.

V. All the grandchildren of my several sisters are my grandchildren.

Reason: They are the children of my sons and daughters.

VI. All the children of my several sisters, myself a female, are my sons and daughters.

Reason: The husbands of my sisters are my husbands as well as theirs. This difference, however, exists: I can distinguish my own children from those of my sister’s, to the latter of whom I am a step-mother. But since this relationship is not discriminated, they fall into the category of my sons and daughters. Otherwise they would fail without the system.

VII. All the children of several own brothers are brothers and sisters to each other.

Reason: These brothers are the husbands of all the mothers of these children. The children can distinguish their own mothers, but not their fathers, wherefore, as to the former, a part are own brothers and sisters, and step-brothers and step-sisters to the remainder; but as to the latter, they are probable brothers and sisters. For these reasons they naturally fall into this category.

VIII. The children of these brothers and sisters are also brothers and sisters to each other; the children of the latter are brothers and sisters again, and this relationship continues downward among their descendants indefinitely. It is precisely the same with the children and descendants of several own sisters, and of several brothers and sisters. An infinite series is thus created, which is a fundamental part of the system. To account for this series it must be further assumed that the marriage relation extended wherever the relationship of brother and sister was recognized to exist; each brother having as many wives as he had sisters, own or collateral, and each sister having as many husbands as she had brothers, own or collateral. Marriage and the family seem to form in the grade or category, and to be coextensive with it. Such apparently was the beginning of that stupendous conjugal system which has before been a number of times adverted to.

IX. All the brothers of my father are my fathers; and all the sisters of my mother are my mothers.

Reasons, as in I, III, and VI.

X. All the brothers of my mother are my fathers.

Reason: They are my mother’s husbands.

XI. All the sisters of my mother are my mothers.

Reasons, as in VI.

XII, All the children of my collateral brothers and sisters are, without distinction, my sons and daughters.

Reasons, as in I, III, IV, VI.

XIII. All the children of the latter are my grand-children.

Reasons as in II.

XIV. All the brothers and sisters of my grandfather and grandmother, on the father’s side and on the mother’s side, are my grandfathers and grandmothers.

Reason: They are the fathers and mothers of my father and mother.

Every relationship recognized under the system is thus explained from the nature of the consanguine family, founded upon the intermarriage of brothers and sisters, awn and collateral, in a group. Relationships on the father’s side are followed as near as the parentage of children could be known, probable fathers being treated as actual fathers. Relationships on the mother’s side are determined by the principle of affinity, step-children being regarded as actual children. Turning next to the marriage relationships, confirmatory results are obtained, as the following table will show:

Tongan.
 
Hawaiian.
 Male speaking, 
My Brother’s Wife,Unoho, My WifeWaheena, My Wife.
My Wife’s Sister,Unoho, My Wife.Waheena, My Wife.
 Female Speaking, 
My Husband’s Brother,Unoho, My Husband.Kane, My Husband.
 Male speaking, 
My Father’s Bother’s Son’s WifeUnoho, My Wife.Waheena, My Wife
My Mother’s Sister’s Son’s Wife,Unoho, My Wife.Waheena, My Wife.
 Female Speaking, 
My Father’s Brother’s Daughter’s Husband,Unoho, My Husband.Kaikoeka, My Brother-in-law.
My Mother’s Sister’s Daughter’s Husband,Unoho, My Husband.Kaikoeka, My Brother-in- law.

Wherever the relationship of wife is found in the collateral line, that of husband must be recognized in the lineal, and conversely.[6] When this system of consanguinity and affinity first came into use the relationships, which: are still preserved, could have been none other than those which actually existed, whatever may have afterwards occurred in marriage usages. From the evidence embodied in this system of consanguinity the deduction is made that the consanguine family, as defined, existed among the ancestors of the Polynesian tribes when the system was formed. Such a form of the family is necessary to render an interpretation of the system possible. Moreover, it furnishes an interpretation of every relationship with reasonable exactness.

The following observation of Mr. Oscar Peschel is deserving of attention: “That at any time and in any place the children of the same mother have propagated themselves sexually, for any long period, has been rendered especially incredible, since it has been established that even in the case of organisms devoid of blood, such as the plants, reciprocal fertilization of the descendants of the same parents is to a great extent impossible."[7] It must be remembered that the consanguine group united in the marriage relation was not restricted to own brothers and sisters; but it included collateral brothers and sisters as well. The larger the group recognizing the marriage relation, the less the evil of close inter-breeding.

From general considerations the ancient existence of such a family was probable. The natural and necessary relations of the consanguine family to the punaluan, of the punaluan to the Syndyasmian, and of the Syndyasmian to the monogamian, each presupposing its predecessor, lead directly to this conclusion. They stand to each other in a logical sequence, and together stretch across several ethnical periods from savagery to civilization. In like manner the three great systems of consanguinity, which are connected with the three radical forms of the family, stand to each other in a similarly connected series, running parallel with the former, and indicating not less plainly a similar line of human progress from savagery to civilization. There are reasons for concluding that the remote ancestors of the Aryan, Semitic, and Uralian families possessed a system identical with the Malayan when in the swage state, which was finally modified into the Turanian after the establishment of the gentile organization, and then overthrown when the monogamian family appeared introducing the Aryan System of consanguinity.

Notwithstanding the high character of the ancient existence of the consanguine family among the Hawaiians which should not be overlooked.

Its antecedent existence is rendered probably by the condition of society in the Sandwich Islands when it first became thoroughly known. At the time the American missions were established upon these Islands (1820), a state of society was found which appalled the missionaries. The relations of the sexes and their marriage customs which existed was their chief astonishment. They were suddenly introduced to a phase of ancient society where the monogamian family was unknown, where the Syndyasmian family was unknown; but, in the place of these, and without understanding the organism, they found the punaluan family, with own brothers and sisters not entirely excluded, in which the males were living in polygyny, and the females in polyandry. It seemed to them that they had discovered the lowest level of human degradation, not to say of depravity. But the innocent Hawaiians, who had not been able to advance themselves out of savagery, were living, no doubt respectably and modestly for savages under customs and usages which to them had the force of laws. It is probable that, they were living as virtuously in their faithful observance, as these excellent, missionaries were in the performance of their own. The shock the latter experienced from their discoveries expresses the profoundness of the expanse which separates civilized from savage man. The high moral sense and refined sensibilities, which had been a growth of the ages, were brought face to face with the feeble moral sense and the coarse sensibilities of a savage man of all these periods ago. As a contrast it was total and complete. The Rev. Hiram Bingham, one of these veteran missionaries, has given us an excellent history of the Sandwich Islands, founded upon original investigations, in which he pictures the people as practising the sum of human abominations. “Polygamy, implying plurality of husbands and wives,” he observes, “fornication, adultery, incest, infant murder, desertion of husband and wives, parents and children; sorcery, covetousness, and oppression extensively prevailed, and seem hardly to have been forbidden by their religion."[8] Punaluan marriage and the punaluan family dispose of the principal charges in this grave indictment, and leave the Hawaiians a chance at a moral character. The existence of morality, even among savages, must be recognized, although low in type; for there never could have been a time in human experience when the principle of morality did not exist. Wakea, the eponymous ancestor of the Hawaiians, according to Mr. Bingham, is said to have married his eldest daughter. In the time of these missionaries brothers and sisters married without reproach. “The union of brother and sister in the highest, ranks,” he further remarks, “became fashionable, and continued until the revealed will of God was made known to them."[9] It is not singular that the intermarriage of brothers and sisters should have survived from the consanguine family into the punaluan in some cases, in the Sandwich Islands, because the people had not attained to the gentile organization, and because the punaluan family was a growth out of the consanguine not yet entirely consummated. Although the family was substantially punaluan, the system of consanguinity remained unchanged, as it came in with the consanguine family, with the exception of certain marriage relationships.

It is not probable that the actual family, among the Hawaiians, was as large as the group united in the marriage relation. Necessity would compel its subdivision into smaller groups for the procurement of subsistence, and for mutual protection; but, each smaller family would be a miniature of the group. It is not improbable that individuals passed at pleasure from one of these subdivisions into another in the punaluan as well as consanguine family, giving rise to that apparent desertion by husbands and wives of each other, and by parents of their children, mentioned by Mr. Bingham. Communism in living must, of necessity, have prevailed both m the consanguine and in the punaluan family, because it was a requirement of their condition. It still prevails generally among savage and barbarous tribes.

A brief reference should be made to the “Nine Grades of Relations of the Chinese.” An ancient Chinese author remarks as follows: “All men born into the world have nine ranks of relations. My own generation is one grade, my father’s is one, that of my grandfather is one, that of my grandfather’s father is one, and that of my grandfather’s grandfather is one; thus, above me are four grades: My son’s generation is one, and that of my grandson’s is one, that of my grandson’s son is one, and that of my grandson’s grandson is one; thus, below me are four grades; including myself in the estimate, there are, in all nine grades. These are brethren, and although each grade belongs to a different, house or family, yet they are all my relations, and these are the nine grades of relations.”

“The degrees of kindred in a family are like the streamlets of a fountain, or the branches of a tree; although the streams differ in being more or less remote, and the branches in being more or less near, yet there is but one trunk and one fountain head."[10]

The Hawaiian system of consanguinity realizes the nine grades of relations (conceiving them reduced to five by striking off the two upper and the two lower members) more perfectly than that of the Chinese at the present time.[11] While the latter has changed through the introduction of Turanian elements, and still more through special addition to distinguish the several collateral lines, the former has held, pure and simple, to the primary grades which presumptively were all the Chinese possessed originally. It is evident that consanguinei, in the Chinese as in the Hawaiian, are generalized into categories by generations; all collaterals of the same grade being brothers and sisters to each other. Moreover, marriage and the family are conceived as forming within the grade, and. confined, so far as husbands and wives are concerned, within its limits. As explained by the Hawaiian categories it is perfectly intelligible. At the same time it indicates an. anterior conditions among the remote ancestors of the Chinese, of which this fragment preserves a knowledge, precisely analogous to that reflected by the Hawaiian. In other words, it indicated the presence of the punaluan family when these grades were formed, of which the consanguine was a necessary predecessor.

In the “Timaeus” of Plato there is a suggestive recognition of the same five primary grades of relation. All consanguinei in the Ideal Republic were to fall into five categories, in which the women were to be in common as wives, and the children in common as to parents. “But how about the procreation of children,” Socrates says to Timaeus. “This, perhaps, you easily remember, on account of the novelty of the proposal; for we ordered that marriage unions and children should be in common to all persons whatsoever, special care being taken also that no one should be able to distinguish his own children individually, but all consider all their kindred regarding those of an equal age, and in the prime of life, as their brothers and sisters, those prior to them, and yet further back as their parents and grandsires, and those below them, as their children and grandchildren."[12] Plato undoubtedly was familiar with Hellenic and Pelasgian traditions not known to us, which reached far back into the period of barbarism, and revealed traces of a still earlier condition of the Grecian tribes. His ideal family may have been derived from these delineations, a supposition far more probable than that it was a philosophical deduction. It will be noticed that his fire grades of relations are precisely the same as the Hawaiian; that the family was to form in each grade where the relationship was that of brothers and sisters; and that husbands and wives were to be in common in the group.

Finally, it will be perceived that the state of society indicated by the consanguine family points with logical directness to an anterior condition of promiscuous intercourse. There seems to be no escape from this conclusion, although questioned by so eminent a writer as Mr. Darwin.[13] It is not probable that, promiscuity in the primitive period was long continued even in the horde; because the latter would break up into smaller groups for subsistence, and fall into consanguine families. The most that can safely be claimed upon this difficult question is that the consanguine family was the first organized form of society, and that it was necessarily an improvement upon the previous unorganized state, whatever that state may have been. It found mankind at the bottom of the scale, from which, as a starting point, and the lowest known, we may take up the history of human progress, and trace it through the growth of domestic institutions, inventions, and discoveries, from savagery to civilization. By no chain of events can it be shown more conspicuously than in the growth of the idea of the family through successive forms. With the existence of the consanguine family established, of which the proofs adduced seem to be sufficient, the remaining families are easily demonstrated.


Footnotes

1. The Rotuman is herein for the first time published. It was worked out by the Rev. John Osborn, Wesleyan missionary at Rotuma, and procured and forwarded to the author by the Rev. Lorimer Fison, of Sydney, Australia.

2. a as in ale; a as a in father; a as a in at; i as i in it; u as- oo in food.

3. “Systems of Consanguinity,” loc. cit, p. 445.

4. 1b, pp. 525, 573.

5. “ Systems of Consanguinity,” etc. 1, c., Table iii, pp. 542, 573.

6. Among the Kafirs of South Africa, the wife of my father’s brother’s son, of my father’s sister’s son, of my mother’s brother’s son, and of my mother’s sister’s son, are all alike my wives, as well as theirs, as appears by their system of consanguinity.

7. “Races of Man,” Appleton’s ed. 1876, p. 232.

8. Bingham’s “Sandwich Islands,” Hartford ed., 1847, p. 21.

9. lb., p. 23.

10. “Systems of Consanguinity,” etc., p. 415.

11. lb., p. 432, where the Chinese system is presented in full.

12. “Timaeus,” c. ii, Davis’s trans.

13. “Descent of Man,” ii, 360.


For Hawaiian System of Family Relationship, see the Tables appended.

System of Relationship of the Hawaiians and Romans

G= grand, M= male, M sp= male speaking F= female, F sp= female speaking,

 Description of personsBy Hon. Thomas Miller
Relationship in Hawaiian
TranslationBy Rev. John Osborne
Relationship in Roman
Translation
1My G grandfatherKu-pu’naMy grandparentMa-pi-ga faMy grandparent, M
2My G grandfather’s brotherKu-pu’naMy grandparentMa-pi-ga faMy grandparent, M
3My G grandfather’s sisterKu-pu’naMy grandparentMa-pi-ga fa-hon’-iMy grandparent, F
4My G grandmother Ku-pu’naMy grandparentMa-pi-ga fa-hon’-iMy grandparent, F
5My G grandmother’s sisterKu-pu’naMy grandparentMa-pi-ga fa-hon’-iMy grandparent, F
6My grandfatherKu-pu’naMy grandparentMa-pi-ga fuMy grandparent, M
7My grandmotherKu-pu’naMy grandparentMa-pi-ga fa-hon’-iMy grandparent, F
8My fatherMa-ku’-a ka’ -naMy parent, MOi-fa hon’-iMy father
9My motherMa-ku-a-wa-hee’-naMy Parent FOi-hon’-iMy mother
10My sonKai’-kee-ka’-aMy child, MLe’-a-faMy child M
11My daughterKai’-kee-wa-hee’-naMy child, FLe’-e-hon’-iMy child F
12My grandsonMoo-pu’-na ka’-naMy grandchild, MMa-pi-ga faMy grandchild M
13My granddaughterMoo-pu’-na wa-hee’-naM grandchild, FMai-pi-ga faMy grandchild F
14My G grandsonMoo-pu’-na-ka’-naMy grandchild, MMai-pi-ga faMy grandchild M
15My G granddaughterMoo-pu’-na-wa-hee’-naMy grandchild, FMai-pi-ga-hon’-iMy grandchild F
16My G G grandsonMoo-pu’-na’-ka’-naMy grandchild, MMa-pi-ga faMy grandchild M
17My G G granddaughterMoo-pu’-na-wa-hee’-naMy grandchild, FMai-pi-ga-hon’-iMy grandchild F
18My older brother (M sp)Kai-ku-a-a’-naMy brother, olderSa-si-giMy brother, older
19My older brother (F sp)Kai-ku-na’-naMy brother, olderSag’-ve-ven’-iMy brother, older
20My older sister (M sp)Kai-ku-wa-hee’-naMy sister, olderSag-hon’-iMy sister, older
21My older sister (F sp)Kai-ku-na’-naMy brother, olderSag’-ve-ven’-i
22My younger brother (M sp)Kai-ka-I’-naMy brother, youngerSa-si-giMy brother, younger
23My younger brother (F sp)Kai-ku-na’-naMy brother, youngerSag’-ve-ven’-iMy brother, younger
24My younger sister (M sp)Kai-ku-wa-hee’-naMy sister, youngerSag-hon’-iMy sister, younger
25My younger sister (F sp)Kai-ka-I’-naMy sister, youngerSa-si-giMy sister, younger
26My brother’s son (M sp)Kai’-kee-ka’-naMy child, MLe’-e’-fa’My child, M
27My brother’s wife (M sp)Hu-no’-naMy son-in-lawLe’-e-hon’-iMy child, F
28My brother’s daughter (M sp)Kai’-kee-wa-hee’-naMy child, FLe’-e-hon’-iMy child, F
29My brother’s daughter’s husband (M sp)Hu-no’-naMy daughter-in-lawLe’-e’-fa’My child, M
30My brother’s grandson (M sp)Moo-pu’-na-ka’-naMy grandchild, MMa-pi-ga faMy grandchild M
31My brother’s grand-daughter (M sp)Moo-pu’-na’-wa-hee’-naMy grandchild, F” hon’-iMy grandchild F
32My brother’s G grandson (M sp)Moo-pu’-na-ka’-naMy grandchild, MMa-pi-ga faMy grandchild M
33My brother’s grand-daughter Moo-pu’-na-wa-hee’-naMy grandchild, F” hon’-iMy grandchild F
34My sister’s sonKai’-kee-ka’-naMy child, MLe’-e’-fa’My child, M
35My sister’s son’s wife (M sp)Hu-no’-naMy daughter-in-lawLe’-e-hon’-iMy child, F
36My sister’s daughterKai-kee-wa-hee’-naMy child, FLe’-e-hon’-iMy child, F
37My sister’s daughter’s husbandH-u-no’-naMy son-in-lawLe’-e’-fa’My child, M
38My sister’s grandsonMoo-pu’-na-ka’-naMy grandchild, MMa-pi-ga faMy grandchild, M
39My sister’s grand-daughter (M sp)Moo-pu’-na-wa-hee’-naMy grandchild, FMa-pi-ga-hon’-iMy grandchild, F
40My sister’s G grandson (M sp)Moo-pu’-na-ka’-naMy grandchild, MMa-pi-ga faMy grandchild, M
41My sister’s G grand-daughter (M sp)Moo-pu’-na-wa-hee’-naMy grandchild, FMa-pi-ga-hon’-iMy grandchild, F
42My brother’s son (F sp)Kai’-kee-ka’-naMy child, MLe’-a-faMy child, M
43My brother’s son’ wife (F sp)Hu-no’-naMy daughter-in lawLe’-e-hon’-iMy child, F
44My brother’s daughter (F sp)Kai’-kee-wa-hee’-naMy child, FLe’-e-hon’-iMy child, F
45My brother’s daughter’s husband F spHu-no’-naMy son-in-lawLe’-e-faMy child, M
46My brother’s grandson F spMoo-pu’-na-ka’-naMy grandchild, MMa-pi-ga faMy grandchild, M
47My brother’s grand-daughter +Moo-pu’-na-wa-hee’-naMy grandchild, FMa-pi-ga-hon’-iMy grandchild, F
48My brother’s G grandson F spPoo-pu’-na-ka’-naMy grandchild, MMa-pi-ga-hon’-iMy grandchild, M
49My brother’s G grand-daughter F spMoo-pu’-na-wa-hee’-naMy grandchild, FMa-pi-ga-hon’-iMy grandchild, F
50My sister’s son F spKai’-kee-ka-naMy child, MLe’-e-faMy child, M
51My sister’ son’s wifeHu-no’-naDaughter-in law Le’-a-hon’-iMy child, F
52My sister’s daughterKi’-kee-wa-hee’-naMy child, FLe’-a-hon’-iMy child, F
53My sister’s daughter’s husbandHu-no’-naMy son-in-lawLe’-e’faMy child, M
54My sister’s grandsonMoo-pu’-na-ka’-naMy grandchild, MMa-pi-ga-faMy grandchild, M
55My sister’s grand-daughterMoo-pu’-na-wa-hee’-naMy grandchild, FMa-pi-ga-hon’-iMy grandchild, F
56My sister’s G grandsonMoo-pu’-na-ka’-naMy grandchild, MMa-pi-ga-faMy grandchild, M
57My sister’s G grand-daughterMoo-pu’-na-wa-hee’-naMy grandchild, FMa-pi-ga-hon’-iMy grandchild, F
58My father’s brotherMa-ku’-a-ka’-naMy parent, MOi-faMy parent, M
59My father’s brother’s wifeMa-ku’-a-wa-hee’-naMy parent, FOi-hon’-iMy parent, F
60My father’s brother’s son (older, M sp)Kai’-ku-a-a’-naMy brother, olderSa-si-giMy brother
61My father’s brother’s son (younger, M sp)Kai’-ka-i-naMy brother, youngerSa-si-giMy brother
62My father’s brother’s son’s wifeWa-hee’-naMy wifeSag-hon’-iMy sister
63My father’s brother’s daughter (older M sp)Kai’-ku-wa-hee’-naMy sisterSag-hon’-iMy sister
64My father’s brother’s daughter (younger M sp)Kai’-ku-wa-hee’-naMy sisterSag-hon’-iMy sister
65My father’s brother’s daughter’ husband Kai’-ko-wee’-kaMy brother-in-lawSa-si-giMy brother
66My father’s brother’s son’s sonKai’-kee-ka’-naMy child, MLe’-e-faMy child, M
67My father’s brother’s son’s daughter Kai-kee-wa-hee’-naMy child, FLe’-e-hon’-iMy child, F
68My father’s brother’s daughter’s sonKai’-kee-ka’-naMy child, MLe’-a-faMy child, M
69My father’s brother’s daughter’s daughterKai’-kee-wa-hee’-naMy child, FLe’-e-hon’-iMy child, F
70My father’s brother’s G grandsonMoo-pu’-na-ka’-naMy grandchild, MMa-pi-ga-faMy grandchild, M
71My father’s brother’s G daughter Moo-pu’-na-wa’-hee’-naMy grandchild, FMa-pi-ga-hon’-iMy grandchild, f
72My father’s brother’s G G grandsonMoo-pu’-na-ka’-naMy grandchild, MMa-pi-ga-faMy grandchild, M
73My father’s brother’s G G granddaughterMoo-pu’-na-wa-hee’-naMy grandchild, FMa-pi-ga-hon’-iMy grandchild, F
74My father’s sisterMa-ku’a-wa-hee’-naMy parent, FOi-hon’-iMy parent, F
75My father’s sister’ husbandMa-ku’-a-ka’-naMy parent, MOi-faMy parent, M
76My father’s sister’ son (older, M sp)Kai’-ku-a-a’-naMy brother, olderFa-fi-giMy brother
77My father’s sister’ son (younger, M sp)Kai’-ka-i-naMy brother, youngerFa-fi-giMy brother
78My father’s sister’ son’s wifeWa-hee’-na-My wifeSag-hon’-iMy sister
79My father’s sister’s daughterKai’-ku-wa-hee’-naMy sisterSag-hon’-iMy sister
80My father’s sister’s daughter’s husbandKai-ko-wee’-kaMy brother-in-lawSa-si-giMy brother
81My father’s sister’s son’s sonKi’-kee-ka’-naMy child, MLe’-a-faMy child, M
82My father’s sister’s son’s daughterKi-kee-wa-hee’-naMy child, FLe’-e-hon’-iMy child, F
83My father’s sister’s daughter’s sonKai’-kee-ka’-naMy child, MLe’-e-faMy child, M
84My father’s sister’s daughter’s daughterKai’-kee-wa-hee’-naMy child, FLe’-e-hon’iMy child, F
85My father’s sister’s G grandsonMoo-pu’-na-ka’-naMy grandchild, MMa-pi-ga-faMy grandchild, M
86My father’s sister’s G granddaughterMoo-pu’-na-wa-hee’-naMy grandchild, FMa-pi-ga-hon’-iMy grandchild, F
87My father’s sister’s G G grandsonMoo-pu’-na-ka’-naMy grandchild, MMa-pi-ga-faMy grandchild, M
88My father’s sister’s G G granddaughterMoo-pu’-na-wa-hee’-naMy grandchild, FMa-pi-ga-hon’-iMy grandchild, F
89My mother’s brotherMa-ku-a-ka’-naMy parent, MOi-faMy parent, M
90My mother’s brother’s wifeMa-ku-a-wa-hee’-naMy parent, FOi-hon’-iMy parent, F
91My mother’s brother’ son (older M speaking)Kai’-ku-a-a’-naMy brother, olderSa-si-giMy brother
92My mother’s brother’ son (younger M speaking)Kai-ka-i-naMy brother, youngerSa-si-giMy brother
93My mother’s brother’ son’s wifeWa-hee’-naMy wifeSag-hon’-iMy sister
94My mother’s brother’ daughterKai’-ku-wa-hee’-naMy sisterSag-hon’-iMy sister
95My mother’s brother’ daughter’s husbandKai-ko-ee’-kaMy brother-in-lawSa-si-giMy brother
96My mother’s brother’ son’s sonKai’-kee-ka’-naMy child, MLe’-e-faMy child, M
97My mother’s brother’ son’s daughterKai’-kee-wa-hee’-naMy child, FLe’-e-hon’-iMy child, F
98My mother’s brother’ daughter’s sonKai’-kee-ka-naMy child, MLe’-e-faMy child, M
99My mother’s brother’ daughter’s daughterKai’-kee-wa-hee’-naMy child, FLe’-e-hon’-iMy child, F
100My mother’s brother’s G grandsonMoo-pu’-na-ka’-naMy grandchild, MMa-pi-ga-faMy grandchild, M
101My mother’s brother’s G grand-daughterMoo-pu’-na-wa’-hee’-naMy grandchild, FMa-pi-ga-hon’-iMy grandchild, F
102My mother’ brother’s G G grandsonMoo-pu’-na-ka’-naMy grandchild, MMa-pi-ga-faMy grandchild, M
103My mother’s brother’s G G grand-daughterMoo-pu’-wa-hee’-naMy grandchild, FMa-pi-ga-hon’-iMy grandchild, F
104My mother’s sisterMa-ku-a-wa-hee’-naMy parent, FOi-hon’-iMy parent, F
105My mother’s sister’s husbandMa-ku-a-ka’-naMy parent, MOi-faMy parent, M
106My mother’s sister’ son (older, M Sp)Kai-ku-a-a’-naMy brother, olderSa-si-giMy brother
107My mother’s sister’ son (younger, M Sp)Kai’-ka-i-naMy brother, youngerSa-si-giMy brother
108My mother’s sister’ son’s wifeWa-hee’-naMy wifeSag-hon’-iMy sister
109My mother’s sister’s daughterKai’-ku-wa-hee’-naMy sisterSag-hon’-iMy sister
110My mother’s sister’s daughter’s husbandKai’-ko-wee’-kaMy brother-in-lawSa-si-giMy brother
111My mother’s sister’s son’s sonKai’-kee-ka’-naMy child, MIe-e-faMy child, M
112My mother’s sister’s son’s daughterKai’-kee-wa-hee’-naMy child, FLe’-e-hon’-iMy child, F
113My mother’s sister’s daughter’s sonKai’-kee-ka’-naMy child, MIe-e-faMy child, M
114My mother’s sister’s daughter’s daughterKai’-kee-wa-hee’-naMy child, FIe-e-hon’-iMy child, F
115My mother’s sister’s G grandsonMoo-pu’-na-ka’-naMy grandchild, MMa-pi-ga-faMy grandchild, M
116My mother’s sister’s G grand-daughterMoo-pu’-na-wa-hee’-naMy grandchild, FMa-pi-ga-hon’-iMy grandchild, F
117My mother’s sister’s G G grandsonMoo-pu’-na-ka’-naMy grandchild, MMa-pi-ga-faMy grandchild, M
118My mother’s sister’s G G grand-daughterMoo-pu’-na-wa-hee’-naMy grandchild, FMa-pi-ga-hon’-iMy grandchild, F
119My father’s father’ brotherKu-pu’-na-ka’-naMy grandparent, MMa-pi-ga-faMy grandparent, M
120My father’s father’ brother’s sonMa-ku’-a-ka’-naMy parent, MOi-faMy parent, M
121My father’s father’ brother’s daughterMa-ku’-a-ka’-wa-hee’-naMy parent, FOi-hon’-iMy parent, F
122My father’s father’ brother’s grandson (older)Kai’-ku-a-a’-naMy brother, ElderSa-si-giMy brother,
123My father’s father’ brother’s grand-daughter (olde)Kai’-ku-wa-hee’-naMy sister, ElderSag-hon’-iMy sister
124My father’s father’ brother’s G grandsonKai’-kee-ka’-naMy child, MLe’-e-faMy child, M
125My father’s father’ brother’s G grand-daughterKai’-kee-wa-hee’-naMy child, FLe’-e-hon’-iMy child, F
126My father’s father’ brother’s G G grandsonMoo-pu-na-ka’-naMy grandchild, MMa-pi-ga-faMy grandchild, M
127My father’s father’ brother’s G G grand-daughterMoo-pu-na-wa-hee’-naMy grandchild, FMa-pi-ga-hon’-iMy grandchild, F
128My father’s father’ sisterKu-pu’-na-wa-hee’-naMy grandparent, FMa-pi-ga-hon’-iMy grandparent, F
129My father’s father’ sister’s sonMa-ku’-a-ka’-naMy parent, MOi-faMy parent, M
130My father’s father’ sister’s daughterMa-ku’-a-wa-hee’-naMy parent, FOi-hon’-iMy parent, F
131My father’s father’ sister’s grandson (older)Kai’-ku-a-a’-naM brother, ElderSa-si-giM brother
132My father’s father’ sister’s grand-daughter (older)Kai’-ku-wa-hee’-naMy sister, elderSag-hon’-iMy sister
133My father’s father’ sister’s G grandsonKai’-kee-ka’-naMy child, MIe-e-faMy child, M
134My father’s father’ sister’s G grand-daughterKai’-kee-wa-hee’-naMy child, FLe’-e-hon’-iMy child, F
135My father’s father’ sister’s G G grandsonMoo-pu’-na-ka’-naMy grandchild, MMa-pi-ga-faMy grandchild, M
136My father’s father’ sister’s G G grand-daughterMoo-pu’-na-wa-hee’-naMy grandchild, FMa-pi-ga-hon’-iMy grandchild, F
137My mother’ mother’s brotherKu-pu’-na-ka’-naMy grandparent, MMa-pi-ga-faMy grandparent, M
138My mother’ mother’s brother’ sonMa-ku-a-ka’-naMy parent, MOi-faMy parent, M
139My mother’ mother’s brother’ daughterMa-ku-a-wa-hee’-naMy parent, FOi-hon’-iMy parent, F
140My mother’ mother’s brother grandson (older)Kai-ku-a-a’-naMy brother, elderSa-si-giMy brother
141My mother’ mother’s brother grand-daughter (older)Kai’-ku-wa-hee’-naMy sister, elderSag-hon’-iMy sister
142My mother’ mother’s G grandsonKai’-kee-ka’-naMy child, MLe’-e-faMy child, M
143My mother’ mother’s G grand-daughterKai’-kee-wa-hee’-naMy child, FLe’-e-hon’-iMy child, F
144My mother’ mother’s G G grandsonMoo-pu’-na-ka’-naMy grandchild, MMa-pi-ga-faMy grandchild, M
145My mother’ mother’s G G grand-daughterMoo-pu’-na-wa-hee’-naMy grandchild, FMa-pi-ga-hon’-iMy grandchild, F
146My mother’s mother’s sisterKu-pu-na-wa-hee’-naMy grandparent, MMa-pi-ga-hon’-iMy grandparent, M
147My mother’s mother’s sister’ sonNa-ku-a-ka’-naMy parent, MOi-faMy parent, M
148My mother’s mother’s sister’ daughterMa-ku-a-wa-hee’-naMy parent, FOi-hon’-iMy parent, F
149My mother’s mother’s sister’ grandson (older, M Sp)Kai’-ku-a-a-naMy brother, ElderSa-si-gaMy brother
150My mother’s mother’s sister’s grand-daughterKai-ku-wa-hee’-naMy sister, elderSag-hon’-iMy sister
151My mother’s mother’s sister’s G grandsonKai’-kee-ka’-naMy child, MLe’-a-faMy child, M
152My mother’s mother’s sister’s G granddaughterKai’-kee-ka’-wa-hee’-naMy child, FLe’-a-hon’-lMy child, F
153My mother’s mother’s sister’s G G grandsonMoo-pu’-na-ka’-naMy grandchild, MMa-pi-ga-faMy grandchild, M
154My mother’s mother’s sister’s G grand-daughterMoo-pu’-wa-hee’F spnaMy grandchild, FMa-pi-ga-hon’-iMy grandchild, F
155My husbandKa’-naMy husbandVe-ven’-iMy husband
156My wifeWa-hee’-naMy wifeHoi-e-na-and-henMy wife
157My husband’s fatherMa-ku’-a-hu-na-aiMy father-in-lawOi-fa-My father
158My husband’s motherMa-ku’-a-hu-na-aiMy mother-in-lawOi-hon’-iMy mother
159My wife’s father.Ma-ku’-a-hu-na-aiMy father-in-lawOi-faMy father
160My wife’s motherMa-ku’-a-hu-na-aiMy mother-in-lawOi-hon’-iMy mother
161My son-in-lawHu’-no’-na-ka’-naMy son-in-lawLe’-e-faMy child, M
162My daughter-in-lawHu-no’-na-wa-hee’-naMy daughter-in-lawLe’-e-hon’-iMy child, F
163My brother-in-law (husband’s brother)Ka’-naMy husbandHom-fu’-eMy brother-in-law
164My brother-in-law (sister’s husband, F sp)Ka’-naMy husbandMe-iMy brother-in-law
165My brother-in-law, (wife’s sister’s husband)Pu-na-lu-a-My intimate companion  
166My brother-in law, (wife’s brotherKai-ko-a’-kaMy sister-in-lawMe-iMy brother-in-law
167My sister-in-law (wife’s)Wa-hee’-naMy wifeHom-fu’-eMy sister-in-law
168My sister-in-law, (husband’s sister)Kai-ko-a’-kaMy sister-in-lawMe-iMy sister-in-law
169My sister-in-law, (brothers wife)Wa-hee’-naMy wifeHom-fu’-eMy sister-in-law
170My sister-in-law, (brother’s wife, F sp)Kai-ko-a-kaMy sister-in-lawHom-fu’-eMy sister-in-law
171My sister-in-law, (husband’s brother’s wife)Pu-na-lu-aMy intimate companion  
172My sister-in-law (wife’s brother’s wife)Wa-hee’-naMy wife  
173My step fatherMa-ku’-a-ka’-naMy parent, MOi-faMy parent, M
174My step motherMa-ku’-a-wa-hee’-naMy parent, FOi-hon’-iMy parent, F
175My step sonKai’-kee-ka’-naMy child, MLe’-e-faMy child, M
176My step daughterKai’-kee-ka’-wa-hee’-naMy child, FLe’-e-hon’-iMy child, F