Chapter 21

Tamomasteguiacachiguacacame;Amotegua santo à;Amoreinotamemacte;Hinadeia iguatiterepa aniateguiacachivèri;Chiamatamoguaco veutamo mac;Guatame neaveretamocai naideni acà api tame neaveretomoopagua;Gua caitametaotitudare;Cai naideni chiguadu—Apita cachià.

Hiaqui.

Itom-achaiteve-capocatecame;Che-chevasu yoyorvva;Itou piepsanaemyaorahua;Em harepoin buyapoannuaamante (tevecapo?) vecapoannuabeni;Machuveitom-buareu yemitomamica-itom;Esoc alulutiria ca-aljiton-anecau itepo soc alulutiria ebeniitomveherim;Caitombutia huenacuchi cativiri betana;Amanitom-yeretua.

Tubar.

Ite-cañartegmuicarichuacatemat;Imit tegmuarac milituraba teochiqualac;Imithuegmica carinite bacachin assifaguin;Imitavamunarir echu nañagualac imo cuigan amo nachictegmuecaricheri;Itecokuatarit, essemer taniguarit, iabbemicam;Itetatacoli ikiri atzomua ikirirainitebacachin cale kuegma naĩ egua cantem;Caisaitenosam bacatatacoli;Bacachin ackiro muetzeracite.

Tarahumara.

Taminonò, mamù reguì guamí gatiki;Taminoinéruje mu regua;Telimea rekijena;Tamineguaruje mu jelaliki henná, guetshiki, mapu hatschibe reguega guami;Tami nututuge hipeba;Tamiguecanjetamiguikeliki, matamé hatschibe reguega tami guecanje putse tami guikejameke;Ke tatamisatuje;Telegatigemeke mechka hulà.Amen.

Cora.

Tayaoppetapahoa pethebe;Cherihuaca eiia teaguarira;Chemeahuabenitahemi(to us) eiia chianaca;Cheaquasteni eiia jevira iye (as) chianacatapoan tup uptapahoa;Eii ta hamuit (bread) eu te huima tahetze rej rujeve ihic (to-day) ta taa;Huatauniraca ta xanacan tetup itcahmo tatahuatauni titaxanacante;Ta vaehre teatcai havobereni xanacat hetze huabachreaca tecai tahemi rutahuaga teh eu ene.Che-enhuatahua.

With these end ourdata[42], but not our lists of dialects; the names Maya, Guazave, Heria, Sicuraba, Xixime, Topia, Tepeguana, and Acaxee all being, either in Hervas, or elsewhere, as applied to the different forms of speech of Sonora and Sinaloa; to which may be added the Tahu, the Tacasca, and the Acasca, which is probably the same word as Acaxee, as Huimi is the same as Yuma, and Zaque as Hiaqui. Of the Guazave a particular dialect is named as the Ahome. Add also the Zoe and Huitcole, probably the same as the Huite.

That some of these unrepresented forms of speech belong to the same class with the Pima, Hiaqui, &c., is nearly certain. How many, however, do so is another question; it may be thatallare in the same predicament; it may be only a few.

The languages of

Mechoacan.

These are—

The last will be considered at once, and dismissed. More has been written on the Otomi than any other language of these parts; the proper Mexican not excepted. It was observed by Naxera that it wasmonosyllabicrather thanpolysynthetic, as so many of the American languages are, with somewhat doubtful propriety, denominated. A Mexican language, with a Chinese characteristic, could scarcely fail to suggest comparisons. Hence, the first operation on the Otomi was to disconnect it from the languages of the New, and to connect it with those of the Old World. With his accustomed caution, Gallatin satisfies himself with stating what others have said, his own opinion evidently being that the relation to the Chinese was one of analogy rather than affinity.

Doubtless this is the sounder view; and one confirmed by three series of comparisons made by the present writer.

The first shows that the Otomi, as compared with the monosyllabic languages of Asia,en masse, has several words in common. But the second qualifies our inferences, by showing that the Maya, a language more distant from China than the Otomi, and, by means inordinately monosyllabic in its structure, has, there or thereabouts, as many. The third forbids any separation of the Otomi from the other languages of America, by showing that it has the ordinary amount of miscellaneous affinities.

In respect to the Chinese, &c., the real question is not whether it hasso many affinities with the Otomi, but whether it hasmore affinities with the Otomi than with the Maya or any other American language; a matter which we must not investigate without remembering thatsomedifference in favour of the Otomi is to be expected, inasmuch as two languages with short or monosyllabic words will, from the very fact of the shortness and simplicity of their constituent elements, have more words alike than two polysyllabic forms of speech.

The fact, however, which most affects the place of the Otomi language is the monosyllabic character of other American languages,e. g.the Athabaskan and the Attacapa.

As these are likely to be the subject of some future investigation, I lay the Otomi, for the present, out of consideration; limiting myself to the expression of an opinion, to the effect that its philological affinities are not very different from what its geographical position suggests.

Of the[43]Pirinda and Tarasca we have grammars, or rather grammatical sketches; abstracts of which, by Gallatin, may be found in his Notes on the Semi-civilized Nations of Mexico, Yucatan, and Central America, in the first volumeof the Transactions of the American Ethnological Society. The following are from the Mithridates.

Pirinda Paternoster.

Cabutumtaki ke exjechori pininte;Niboteachatii tucathi nitubuteallu;Tantoki hacacovi nitubutea pininte;Tarejoki nirihonta manicatii ninujami propininte;Boturimegui dammuce tupacovi chii;Exgemundicovi boturichochii, kicatii pracavovi kue¸entumundijo boturichochijo;Niantexechichovi rumkue¸entuvi innivochochii;Moripachitovi cuinenzimo tegui.Tucatii.

Tarasca Paternoster.

Tata uchàveri tukire hacahini avàndaro;Santo arikeve tucheveti hacangurikua;Wetzin andarenoni tucheveti irecheekua;Ukuareve tucheveti wekua iskire avandaro, na humengaca istu umengave ixu excherendo.Huchaeveri curinda hanganari pakua intzcutzini yaru;Santzin wepovacheras huchaeveri hatzingakuareta, izki huchanac wepocacuvanita haca huchàveri hatzingakuaechani;Ca hastzin teruhtazema teruniguta perakua himbo. Isevengua.

It now becomes convenient to turn to the parts to the east of California, viz.

Utah and New Mexico.

In Utah the philology is simple, all its forms of speech being

1. The Navaho, along with the Jecorilla of New Mexico, the Hoopah of California, and Apatch of California, New Mexico and Sonora, is Athabaskan.

English.Navaho.Apatch.mantennaiailee.womanestsonneeeetzan.head(my)hutzeetsinseezee.hair(my)hutzeeseesga.face(my)hunneestreenee.ear(my)hutjahseetza.eye(my)hunnahsleeda.nose(my)hutchihseetzee.mouth(my)huzzaisheeda.tongue(my)huttsosheedare.tooth(my)hurgosheego.skyeeyaheah.sunchokonoiskeemai.moonklaihonoiclanai.starsonhsuns.daycheen-goeeska.nightklai-gocla.lighthoascen-goskee.rainnaheltinhnagostee.snowyaszahs.hailneeloheeloah.firekonhkou.watertonhtoah.stonetsaizeyzay.onetlaheetahse.twonahkeenahkee.threetanhtau.

The Utah with its allied dialects is Paduca,i. e.a member of the class to which the Shoshoni, Wihinast, and Cumanch languages belong.

3. The Moqui is one of the languages of

The Pueblo Indians of New Mexico.

The comparative civilization of the Pueblo Indians has always attracted the attention of the ethnologist. Until lately, however, he had but aminimumamount of trustworthy information concerning either their habits or their language. He has now a fair amount ofdatafor both. For philological purposes he has vocabularies for six (probably for all) of them.

Of the Pueblo languages two belong to the drainage of the Rio Colorado and four to that of the Rio Grande. Of these two divisions the former lies the farthest west, and, of the two Colorado Pueblos, the most western is that of

The Moqui.—The Moqui vocabulary was procured by Lieut. Simpson from a Moqui Indian who happened to be at Chelly.

The Zunicountry lies in 35° north latitude, to the south and east of the Moqui, and is probably divided by the Sierra de Zuni from

The Acoma, or Laguna, the most southern of the Pueblos of the Rio Grande. North of the Acoma area lies that of

The Jemez, on the San Josef.

The two that still stand over lie on the main stream of the Rio Grande itself. They are—

The Tesuque; and

The Taos or Picuri.—The northern boundaries of the Tesuque seem to be the southern ones of Taos. Connect thesePuebloswith the town of Taos, and the Tesuque with Santa Fé, and the ordinary maps give us the geography.

The philological affinities of the Pueblo languages scarcely coincide with the geographical relations. The Moqui lies far west. Laying this then out of the question, the three that, in their outward signs, most strike the eye in tables, as agreeing with each other, are the Laguna, the Jemez, and the Tesuque. The other two that thus outwardly agree are the Taos and the Zuni,—two that are not in the most immediate geographical juxtaposition.

What is meant by the "outward signs that most strike the eye on tables"? This is shown in the following tables:—

English.Zuni.Tesuque.headoshoquinneepto.hairtiyahweepo.earlahjotinneeoyez.eyetonahweetzie.nosenohahhuneeheu.mouthahwahtinneeso.tonguehoninneehae.toothoahnahweemuai.

The following are some of the most patent miscellaneous affinities:—

The Moqui, which is not to be separated from the other Pueblo languages, has, out of twenty-one words compared, eight coinciding with the Utah.

Neither are there wanting words common to the Pueblo languages and those of the Athabaskan Navahos, Jecorillas and Apatches.

Of these the first two may be borrowed. In

Kanzas

the languages areArapaho, andShyenne, already noticed; andCumanch, which is Paduca.

For theKiowaywe want specimens. In

Nebraska

they areSioux, already noticed, andPawni, allied to theRiccaree. Kanzas leads us to

Texas.

It is convenient in a notice of the languages of the State of Texas to bear in mind its early, as well as its present relations to the United States. In a country where the spread of the population from the other portions of the Union has been so rapid, and where the occupancy is so complete, we are prepared to expect but a small proportion of aborigines. And such, upon the whole, is the case. The displacement of the Indian tribes of Texas has been great. Even, however, when Mexican, Texas was not in the category of the older and more original portions of Mexico. It was not brought under therégimeof the missionaries, as we may see by turning to that portion of the Mithridates which treats of the parts west of the Mississippi. The references here are to Dupratz, to Lewis and Clarke, to Charlevoix, to French and English writers rather than to the great authority for the other parts of Spanish America—Hervas. And the information is less precise and complete. All this is because Texas in the earlier part of its history was, in respect to its exploration and description, a part of Louisiana, (and, as such, French) rather than a part of Mexico, and (as such) Spanish.

The notices of Texas, in the Mithridates, taken along with our subsequentdata, are to the effect that (a) theCaddo, (b) theAdaizeorAdahi, (c) theAttakapa, and (d) theChoktahare the prevailing languages; to which may be added a few others of minor importance.

The details as to the distribution of the subordinate forms of speech over these four leading languages are as follows:—

a.The Nandakoes, Nabadaches, Alich (or Eyish), and Ini or Tachi are expressly stated to beCaddo; and, as it is from the name of the last of these that the word Texas is derived, we have satisfactory evidence thatsomemembers, at least, of the Caddo family aretruly and originallyTexian.

b.The Yatassi, Natchitoches,Adaize(orAdaye), Nacogdoches, and Keyes, belong to the Caddo confederacy, but without speaking the Caddo language.

c.The Carancouas, theAttacapas, the Apelusas, the Mayes speak dialects of the same language.

d.The Tunicas speak the same language as the Choctahs.

Concerning the philology of the Washas, the Bedies, the Acossesaws, and the Cances, no statements are made.

It is obvious that the information supplied by the Mithridates is measured by the extent of our knowledge of the four languages to which it refers.

Of these, the Choktah, which Adelung calls the Mobilian, is the only one for which the Mithridates itself supplies, or could supply, specimens; the other three being unrepresented by any sample whatever. Hence, to say that the Tachi was Caddo, that the Yatassi was Adahi, or that the Carancoua was Attacapa, was to give an instance, in the way of explanation, of theobscurum per obscurius. Since the publication of the Mithridates, however, we have got samples of all three—Caddo, Adahi, and Attacapa—so that our standards of comparison are improved. They are to be found in a tabulated form, and in a form convenient for collation and comparison in both of Gallatin's papers. They were all collected before the annexation of Texas, and they appear in the papers just referred to as Louisiana, rather than truly Texian, languages; being common to the two areas.

Of the works and papers written upon Texas since it became a field of observation for English and American, as opposed to French and Spanish observers, the two on which the present writer, when he treated of the subject in his work on the Varieties of Mankind, most especially, and perhaps exclusively relied, were the well-known work of Kennedy on Texas, and a MS. with which he was favoured by Mr. Bollaert, specially limited to the ethnology of the State. Of this MS. a short abstract is to be found in the Report of the British Association for the Advancement of Science for the year 1846, made by Mr. Bollaert himself.

The later the notice of Texas the greater the prominence given to a tribe of which nothing is said in the Mithridates; viz. theCumanch. As late as 1844 we had nothing beyond the numerals and a most scanty MS. list of words to tell us what the Cumanch language really was. These, however, were sufficient to show that its affinities were of a somewhat remarkable kind, viz. with the Shoshoni, or Snake, tongues of the southern parts of Oregon[45]. In Mr. Bollaert's noticethe Cumanches are divided into three sections: (1) the Cumanch or Jetan, (2) the Lemparack, and (3) the Tenuha, and a list of no less than thirty-five other tribes follows this division, some of these being said to be wholly extinct, some partially so; some to be more or less Cumanch, some to be other than Cumanch.

The tendency of the Mithridates is to give prominence to the Caddo, Attacapa, and Adahi tongues, and to incline the investigator, when dealing with the other forms of speech, to ask how far they are connected with one of these three. The tendency of the writers last-named is to give prominence to the Cumanch, and to suggest the question: How far is this (or that) form of speech Cumanch or other than Cumanch?

Working with the Mithridates, the MS. of Mr. Bollaert, and Mr. Kennedy's volume on Texas before me, I find that the list of Texian Indians which these authorities justified me in publishing in 1848, contained (1) Coshattas, (2) Towiachs, Towakenos, Towecas, and Wacos, (3) Lipans or Sipans, (4) Aliche or Eyish, (5) Acossesaws, (6) Navaosos, (7) Mayes, (8) Cances, (9) Toncahuas, (10) Tuhuktukis, (11) Unataquas or Anadarcos, (12) Mascovie, (13) Tawanis or Ionis, (14) Wico,? Waco, (15) Avoyelles, (16) Washitas, (17) Ketchi, (18) Xaramenes, (19) Caicaches, (20) Bidias, (21) Caddo, (22) Attacapa, (23) Adahi; besides the Carankahuas (of which the Cokes are made a branch) classed with the Attacapa, and not including certain Cherokees, Choctahs, Chikkasahs, and Sioux.

AWashitavocabulary, which will be referred to in the sequel, concludes the list of Texian languages known by specimens.

At present, then, the chief question respecting the philology of Texas is one of distribution. Given as centres to certain groups

how do we arrange the tribes just enumerated? Two works help us here:—1. A letter from the Ex-president Burnett to Schoolcraft on the Indians of Texas. Date 1847. 2. A Statistical Notice of the same by Jesse Stem. Date 1851.

Stem's statistics run thus:—

Tribes.Numbers.Towacarros141}293Wacos114Ketchies38Caddos161}476Andarcos202Ioni113Tonkaways1152Wichitas100Lipans500Comanches20,000

giving us several of the names that have already appeared; giving also great prominence to the Cumanches—numerally at least.

In Mr. Burnett's Letter the termCaddois prominent; but whether it denote the Caddolanguage, or merely the Caddoconfederation, is uncertain. Neither can I find from the context whether the statements respecting the Indians of the Caddo connexion (for this is what we must call it at present) are made on the personal authority of the writer, or whether they are taken, either directly or indirectly, from the Mithridates. The term that Burnett uses isstock, his statement being that the Waco, the Tawacani, the Towiash, the Aynic, the San Pedro Indians, the Nabaducho, and the Nacodocheets are all both Texian in origin and Caddo instock.

His other tribes are—

1. TheKetchi: a small tribe on Trinity River, hated by the Cumanches as sorcerers, and, perhaps, the same as—

2. TheHitchi, once a distinct tribe, now assimilated with their neighbours.

3. TheTonkaways, a separate tribe, of which, however, the distinctive characters are not stated.

Whatever may be the exact details of the languages, dialects, and subdialects of Texas, the general outline is simple.

TheChoctahforms of speech are anything but native.

They are of foreign origin and recent introduction. So are certain Sioux and other dialects spoken within the Texian area.

TheCumanchis in the same predicament; though not, perhaps, so decidedly. It belongs to the Paduca class, and its affinities are with the Shoshoni and Wihinast of Oregon.

TheCaddoProper is said to be intrusive, having been introduced so late as 1819 from the parts between the great Raft and the Natchitoches or Red River. I hold, however, thatsomeCaddo forms of speech must be indigenous.

TheWitchitais probably one of these:—

English.Caddo.Witchita.headcundoetskase.hairbeunnodeodske.eyenockkochunkidahkuck.nosesoldutstistoe.mouthnowoesehawkoo.tongueockkotunnahutskee.toothockkodetaawk.onewhistecherche.twobitmitch.threedowohdaub.fourpeawehdawquats.fivedissickkaesquats.sixdunkkeekehass.sevenbissickkakeopits.eightdowsickkakeotope.ninepewesickkasherchekeeite.tenbinnahskedorash.

TheAdahihas already been noticed as being a comparatively isolated language, but, nevertheless, a language with numerous miscellaneous affinities.

TheAttacapais one of the pauro-syllabic languages of America, by which I mean languages that, if not monosyllabic after the fashion of the languages of south-eastern Asia, have the appearance of being so. They form a remarkable class, but it is doubtful whether they form a natural one,i. e.whether they are more closely connected with each other in the other elements of philological affinity than they are with the tongues not so characterized. They deserve, however, what cannot be given in the present paper, a special consideration.

For the north-eastern districts of Mexico, New Leon, Tamaulipas, &c.,i. e.for the ports between the Rio Grande and Tampico, no language is known to us by specimens. It is only known that the Cumanch dips deeply into Mexico. So does the Apatch.

A tribe, lately mentioned, that of the Lipans, is,perhaps, Apatsh. Burnett states that they agree with the Mescalero and Seratics of the parts about the Paso del Norte. For these, however, we still want vocabulariesiis nominibus.

Be the Lipan affinities what they may, it is clear that both the Cumanch and Apatsh languages belong to a class foreign to a great part of the areas over which they are spread—foreign, and (as such) intrusive—intrusive, and (as such) developed at the expense of some native language.

That the original area of the latter is that of the Navahos, Jecorillas, Hoopahs, Umkwas, Tlatskanai, and that these occupy the parts between the Algonkin and Eskimo frontiers—parts as far north as the Arctic circle—has already been stated. No repetition, however, is superfluous that gives definitude and familiarity to the very remarkable phænomena connected with the geographical distribution of the Athabaskans.

Neither are the details of the Paduca area—the area of the Wihinast, Shoshoni, Utah, and Cumanch forms of speech—without interest. To the north of California, the Wihinast, or Western Shoshonis, are separated from the Pacific by a thin strip of Jacon and Kalapuya country, being succeeded in the direction of Utah by the Shoshonis Proper. Then follow the Bonaks and Sampiches; the Shoshoni affinities of which need not be doubted, though the evidence of them is still capable of improvement. The Utah of the parts about Lake Utah is known to us by a vocabulary; and known to be Cumanch or Shoshoni—call it which you will. I call them allPaduca, from a population so named by Pike.

Now, out of twenty-one words common to the Utah and Moqui, eight are alike.

Again, the Shoshoni and Sahaptin have several words in common, and those out of short vocabularies.

Thirdly, the Shoshoni and Wihinast, though spoken within (comparatively) narrow limits, differ from each other more than the several forms of the Cumanch, though spread over a vast tract of land.

The inference from this is, that the Paduca forms of South Oregon and Utah arein situ; those of New Mexico, Texas, and New Leon, &c. being intrusive. In respect to these, I imagine that a line drawn from the south-eastern corner of the Utah Lake to the source of the Red or Salt Fork branch of the River Arkansas, would pass through a country nearly, if not wholly, Paduca; a country which would lie partly in Utah, partly in New Mexico, and partly in Kansas. It would cross the Rocky Mountains, or the watershed between the drainages of the Colorado and the Missouri. It would lie along a high and barren country. It would have on its west the Navaho, Moqui, and Apatsh areas; on its east certain Sioux tribes, and (further south) the Arapahos and Shyennes. It would begin in California and end in the parts about Tampico[46].

Mexico.—Guatimala.

The Cumanches, on the very verge, or within the tropics, vex by their predatory inroads the Mexican states of Zacatecas and Durango. Along with the Lipans they are the sparse occupants of the Bolson de Mapimi. Along with the Apaches they plunder the traders and travellers of Chihuhua.

For the parts about Tampico the language belongs to the Huasteca branch of

The Maya.—The Maya succeeds the language just enumerated on theeast. On thewest, the Otomi, Pirinda, and Tarasca are succeeded by

The Mexican Proper.—But the Maya and Mexican Proper are languages of such importance, that the present paper will merely notify their presence in Mexico and Central America.

The languages that, from their comparative obscurity, claim the attention of the investigator, are those which areother thanMaya andother thanMexican Proper.

Of these, the first succeeds the Huasteca of Huastecapan, or the parts about Tampico; which it separates, or helps to separate, from the northern branches of the Maya Proper, being

The Totonacaof Vera Cruz, of which the following is the Paternoster; the German being that of the Mithridates.

Totonaca.

Unser Vater oim Himmel stehtQuintlatcanénac tiayan huil;gemacht hoch werdedein NahmeTacollalihuacahuanliò mi maocxot;kommedein(reich?)Niquiminaninò mintacacchigethan werdedeinWilleTacholahuanlaò min pahuatwiewieimHimmelCholei ix cacnitietchalchixnactiayan;unserBrot,O quinchouhcan lacalliyauns gibheuteniquilaixquiuhyanohue;uns vergibunsre SündeCaquilamatzancaniuhquintacallitcanwiewirvergebenunsernSchuldigernChonlei òquitnanlamatzancaniyauhò quintalacallaniyan;Undnichtuns lasseCaalaquilamactaxtoyauhdamitwir steheninVersuchunggethan werdeNaliyojauhnacaliyogniChontacholacahuanla.

The same from Hervas.

Kintaccan ò natiayan huill;Tacotllali huacahuanla o min paxca maocxotCamill omintagchi,Tacholaca huanla ixcagnitiet otskiniau chon cholacan ocnatiayan;Alyanohue nikila ixkiu ki lacali chaocan;Kilamatzancaniau kintacagllitcanKintalacatlanian ochonkinan iclamatzan—Caniau kintalacatlanian;Nikilamapotaxtou ala nicliyolaulacotlanacatalit nikilamapotextolamatzon lacacoltana.Chontacholacahuanla.

Cross the watershed from Vera Paz to Oaxaca, and you come to the area of

The Mixteca.—In the ordinary maps, Tepezcolula, on the boundaries of Oaxaca and Puebla, is the locality for its chief dialect, of which there are several.

Mixteca Paternoster.

Dzutundoo, zo dzicani andihui;Naca cuneihuando sasanine;Nakisi santoniisini;Nacahui ñuuñaihui saha yocuhui inini dzahuatnaha yocuhni andihui;Dzitandoo yutnaa tasinisindo hiutni;Dzandooni cuachisindo dzaguatnaha yodzandoondoondi hindo suhani sindoo;Huasi kihui ñahani nucuctandodzondo kuachi;Tahui ñahani ndihindo sahañavvhuaka dzahua;Nacuhui.

The Mixteca succeeds the Mexican Proper, itself being other than Mexican, just as the Totonaca suceeded the Huasteca, which was Maya, the Totonaca being other than Maya.

The Mixteca is the language of Northern,

TheZapotecathat of Southern, Oaxaca.

Hervas writes, that the Zapoteca, Mazateca, Chinanteca, and Mixe were allied. The Mixe locality is the district around Tehuantepec.

South of the areas of the three languages just enumerated comes the main division of the Maya—the Maya of Guatemala and Yucatan, as opposed to the Huasteca of the parts about Tampico. This, however, we pass oversicco pede, for

Honduras and San Salvador.

Limiting ourselves to the districts that undeniably belong to those two States, we have samples of four dialects of

TheLencalanguage; these being from the four Pueblos of Guajiquiro, Opatoro, Intibucá, and Sirmlaton, those of the last being shorter and less complete than the others. They are quite recent, and are to be found only in the Spanish edition of Mr. Squier's Notes on Central America. The English is without them.

Back to Index Next