John Wesley Powell - Indian Linguistic Families Of America, North Of Mexico
J >>
John Wesley Powell >> Indian Linguistic Families Of America, North Of Mexico
Pages:
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
6 |
7 |
8 |
9 |
10 |
11 |
12 |
13 |
14 |
15 |
16 |
17 |
18 |
19 [Transcriber's Note:
Letters that could not be expressed in latin-1 characters have been
"unpacked" and shown in brackets:
[-A][-a][-e][-i][-o][-u] vowel with macron
[vA][va][ve][vi][vu] breve _or_ hacek (see below*)
[.z] dot above letter
[e deg.] e with small ring _under_ it
['s]['g]['C] letter with accent
[t_][l_] underlined letter
[ch] (Greek) chi
[K][S][k][t] upside-down letters
[n] small superscript n
Where this "unpacking" results in an unreadable word, a simplified form
has been added in brackets with an asterisk: [*Unugun].
* In the printed text it is not clear whether the author intended
hacek (Unicode "caron", angled) or breve (curved). Breve was used in
the utf-8 versions of this document, as it is phonetically plausible
and the characters are more widely available. Hacek is used here
because the bracketed form [va] is less ambiguous visually than the
breve [)a].]
* * * * *
* * * *
* * * * *
INDIAN LINGUISTIC FAMILIES OF AMERICA
NORTH OF MEXICO.
by
J. W. POWELL.
* * * * *
CONTENTS.
Nomenclature of linguistic families 7
Literature relating to the classification of Indian languages 12
Linguistic map 25
Indian tribes sedentary 30
Population 33
Tribal land 40
Village sites 40
Agricultural land 41
Hunting claims 42
Summary of deductions 44
Linguistic families 45
Adaizan family 45
Algonquian family 47
Algonquian area 47
Principal Algonquian tribes 48
Population 48
Athapascan family 51
Boundaries 52
Northern group 53
Pacific group 53
Southern group 54
Principal tribes 55
Population 55
Attacapan family 56
Beothuakan family 57
Geographic distribution 58
Caddoan family 58
Northern group 60
Middle group 60
Southern group 60
Principal tribes 61
Population 62
Chimakuan family 62
Principal tribes 63
Chimarikan family 63
Principal tribes 63
Chimmesyan family 63
Principal tribes or villages 64
Population 64
Chinookan family 65
Principal tribes 66
Population 66
Chitimachan family 66
Chumashan family 67
Population 68
Coahuiltecan family 68
Principal tribes 69
Copehan family 69
Geographic distribution 69
Principal tribes 70
Costanoan family 70
Geographic distribution 71
Population 71
Eskimauan family 71
Geographic distribution 72
Principal tribes and villages 74
Population 74
Esselenian family 75
Iroquoian family 76
Geographic distribution 77
Principal tribes 79
Population 79
Kalapooian family 81
Principal tribes 82
Population 82
Karankawan family 82
Keresan family 83
Villages 83
Population 83
Kiowan family 84
Population 84
Kitunahan family 85
Tribes 85
Population 85
Koluschan family 85
Tribes 87
Population 87
Kulanapan family 87
Geographic distribution 88
Tribes 88
Kusan family 89
Tribes 89
Population 89
Lutuamian family 89
Tribes 90
Population 90
Mariposan family 90
Geographic distribution 91
Tribes 91
Population 91
Moquelumnan family 92
Geographic distribution 93
Principal tribes 93
Population 93
Muskhogean family 94
Geographic distribution 94
Principal tribes 95
Population 95
Natchesan family 95
Principal tribes 97
Population 97
Palaihnihan family 97
Geographic distribution 98
Principal tribes 98
Piman family 98
Principal tribes 99
Population 99
Pujunan family 99
Geographic distribution 100
Principal tribes 100
Quoratean family 100
Geographic distribution 101
Tribes 101
Population 101
Salinan family 101
Population 102
Salishan family 102
Geographic distribution 104
Principal tribes 104
Population 105
Sastean family 105
Geographic distribution 106
Shahaptian family 106
Geographic distribution 107
Principal tribes and population 107
Shoshonean family 108
Geographic distribution 109
Principal tribes and population 110
Siouan family 111
Geographic distribution 112
Principal tribes 114
Population 116
Skittagetan family 118
Geographic distribution 120
Principal tribes 120
Population 121
Takilman family 121
Geographic distribution 121
Tanoan family 121
Geographic distribution 122
Population 123
Timuquanan family 123
Geographic distribution 123
Principal tribes 124
Tonikan family 125
Geographic distribution 125
Tonkawan family 125
Geographic distribution 126
Uchean family 126
Geographic distribution 126
Population 127
Waiilatpuan family 127
Geographic distribution 127
Principal tribes 127
Population 128
Wakashan family 128
Geographic distribution 130
Principal Aht tribes 130
Population 130
Principal Haeltzuk tribes 131
Population 131
Washoan family 131
Weitspekan family 131
Geographic distribution 132
Tribes 132
Wishoskan family 132
Geographic distribution 133
Tribes 133
Yakonan family 133
Geographic distribution 134
Tribes 134
Population 135
Yanan family 135
Geographic distribution 135
Yukian family 135
Geographic distribution 136
Yuman family 136
Geographic distribution 137
Principal tribes 138
Population 138
Zunian family 138
Geographic distribution 139
Population 139
Concluding remarks 139
ILLUSTRATION
Plate I. Map. Linguistic stocks of North America north of Mexico.
In pocket at end of volume
[Transcriber's Note:
The Map is available in the "images" directory accompanying the html
version of this file. There are two sizes in addition to the thumbnail:
mapsmall.jpg: 640x788 pixels (about 9x11 in / 23x28 cm, 168K)
maplarge.jpg: 1598x1971 pixels (about 22x27 in / 56x70 cm, 1MB) ]
* * * * *
INDIAN LINGUISTIC FAMILIES.
By J. W. POWELL.
* * * * *
NOMENCLATURE OF LINGUISTIC FAMILIES.
The languages spoken by the pre-Columbian tribes of North America were
many and diverse. Into the regions occupied by these tribes travelers,
traders, and missionaries have penetrated in advance of civilization,
and civilization itself has marched across the continent at a rapid
rate. Under these conditions the languages of the various tribes have
received much study. Many extensive works have been published,
embracing grammars and dictionaries; but a far greater number of minor
vocabularies have been collected and very many have been published. In
addition to these, the Bible, in whole or in part, and various religious
books and school books, have been translated into Indian tongues to be
used for purposes of instruction; and newspapers have been published in
the Indian languages. Altogether the literature of these languages and
that relating to them are of vast extent.
While the materials seem thus to be abundant, the student of Indian
languages finds the subject to be one requiring most thoughtful
consideration, difficulties arising from the following conditions:
(1) A great number of linguistic stocks or families are discovered.
(2) The boundaries between the different stocks of languages are not
immediately apparent, from the fact that many tribes of diverse stocks
have had more or less association, and to some extent linguistic
materials have been borrowed, and thus have passed out of the exclusive
possession of cognate peoples.
(3) Where many peoples, each few in number, are thrown together, an
intertribal language is developed. To a large extent this is gesture
speech; but to a limited extent useful and important words are adopted
by various tribes, and out of this material an intertribal "jargon" is
established. Travelers and all others who do not thoroughly study a
language are far more likely to acquire this jargon speech than the real
speech of the people; and the tendency to base relationship upon such
jargons has led to confusion.
(4) This tendency to the establishment of intertribal jargons was
greatly accelerated on the advent of the white man, for thereby many
tribes were pushed from their ancestral homes and tribes were mixed with
tribes. As a result, new relations and new industries, especially of
trade, were established, and the new associations of tribe with tribe
and of the Indians with Europeans led very often to the development of
quite elaborate jargon languages. All of these have a tendency to
complicate the study of the Indian tongues by comparative methods.
The difficulties inherent in the study of languages, together with the
imperfect material and the complicating conditions that have arisen by
the spread of civilization over the country, combine to make the problem
one not readily solved.
In view of the amount of material on hand, the comparative study of the
languages of North America has been strangely neglected, though perhaps
this is explained by reason of the difficulties which have been pointed
out. And the attempts which have been made to classify them has given
rise to much confusion, for the following reasons: First, later authors
have not properly recognized the work of earlier laborers in the field.
Second, the attempt has more frequently been made to establish an ethnic
classification than a linguistic classification, and linguistic
characteristics have been confused with biotic peculiarities, arts,
habits, customs, and other human activities, so that radical differences
of language have often been ignored and slight differences have heen
held to be of primary value.
The attempts at a classification of these languages and a corresponding
classification of races have led to the development of a complex, mixed,
and inconsistent synonymy, which must first be unraveled and a selection
of standard names made therefrom according to fixed principles.
It is manifest that until proper rules are recognized by scholars the
establishment of a determinate nomenclature is impossible. It will
therefore be well to set forth the rules that have here been adopted,
together with brief reasons for the same, with the hope that they will
commend themselves to the judgment of other persons engaged in
researches relating to the languages of North America.
A fixed nomenclature in biology has been found not only to be
advantageous, but to be a prerequisite to progress in research, as the
vast multiplicity of facts, still ever accumulating, would otherwise
overwhelm the scholar. In philological classification fixity of
nomenclature is of corresponding importance; and while the analogies
between linguistic and biotic classification are quite limited, many of
the principles of nomenclature which biologists have adopted having no
application in philology, still in some important particulars the
requirements of all scientific classifications are alike, and though
many of the nomenclatural points met with in biology will not occur in
philology, some of them do occur and may be governed by the same rules.
Perhaps an ideal nomenclature in biology may some time be established,
as attempts have been made to establish such a system in chemistry; and
possibly such an ideal system may eventually be established in
philology. Be that as it may, the time has not yet come even for its
suggestion. What is now needed is a rule of some kind leading scholars
to use the same terms for the same things, and it would seem to matter
little in the case of linguistic stocks what the nomenclature is,
provided it becomes denotive and universal.
In treating of the languages of North America it has been suggested that
the names adopted should be the names by which the people recognize
themselves, but this is a rule of impossible application, for where the
branches of a stock diverge very greatly no common name for the people
can be found. Again, it has been suggested that names which are to go
permanently into science should be simple and euphonic. This also is
impossible of application, for simplicity and euphony are largely
questions of personal taste, and he who has studied many languages loses
speedily his idiosyncrasies of likes and dislikes and learns that words
foreign to his vocabulary are not necessarily barbaric.
Biologists have decided that he who first distinctly characterizes and
names a species or other group shall thereby cause the name thus used to
become permanently affixed, but under certain conditions adapted to a
growing science which is continually revising its classifications. This
law of priority may well be adopted by philologists.
By the application of the law of priority it will occasionally happen
that a name must be taken which is not wholly unobjectionable or which
could be much improved. But if names may be modified for any reason, the
extent of change that may be wrought in this manner is unlimited, and
such modifications would ultimately become equivalent to the
introduction of new names, and a fixed nomenclature would thereby be
overthrown. The rule of priority has therefore been adopted.
Permanent biologic nomenclature dates from the time of Linnaeus simply
because this great naturalist established the binominal system and
placed scientific classification upon a sound and enduring basis. As
Linnaeus is to be regarded as the founder of biologic classification, so
Gallatin may be considered the founder of systematic philology relating
to the North American Indians. Before his time much linguistic work had
been accomplished, and scholars owe a lasting debt of gratitude to
Barton, Adelung, Pickering, and others. But Gallatin's work marks an era
in American linguistic science from the fact that he so thoroughly
introduced comparative methods, and because he circumscribed the
boundaries of many families, so that a large part of his work remains
and is still to be considered sound. There is no safe resting place
anterior to Gallatin, because no scholar prior to his time had properly
adopted comparative methods of research, and because no scholar was
privileged to work with so large a body of material. It must further be
said of Gallatin that he had a very clear conception of the task he was
performing, and brought to it both learning and wisdom. Gallatin's work
has therefore been taken as the starting point, back of which we may not
go in the historic consideration of the systematic philology of North
America. The point of departure therefore is the year 1836, when
Gallatin's "Synopsis of Indian Tribes" appeared in vol. 2 of the
Transactions of the American Antiquarian Society.
It is believed that a name should be simply a denotive word, and that no
advantage can accrue from a descriptive or connotive title. It is
therefore desirable to have the names as simple as possible, consistent
with other and more important considerations. For this reason it has
been found impracticable to recognize as family names designations based
on several distinct terms, such as descriptive phrases, and words
compounded from two or more geographic names. Such phrases and compound
words have been rejected.
There are many linguistic families in North America, and in a number of
them there are many tribes speaking diverse languages. It is important,
therefore, that some form should be given to the family name by which it
may be distinguished from the name of a single tribe or language. In
many cases some one language within a stock has been taken as the type
and its name given to the entire family; so that the name of a language
and that of the stock to which it belongs are identical. This is
inconvenient and leads to confusion. For such reasons it has been
decided to give each family name the termination "an" or "ian."
Conforming to the principles thus enunciated, the following rules have
been formulated:
I. The law of priority relating to the nomenclature of the
systematic philology of the North American tribes shall not extend
to authors whose works are of date anterior to the year 1836.
II. The name originally given by the founder of a linguistic group
to designate it as a family or stock of languages shall be
permanently retained to the exclusion of all others.
III. No family name shall be recognized if composed of more than one
word.
IV. A family name once established shall not be canceled in any
subsequent division of the group, but shall be retained in a
restricted sense for one of its constituent portions.
Pages:
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
6 |
7 |
8 |
9 |
10 |
11 |
12 |
13 |
14 |
15 |
16 |
17 |
18 |
19