GENERAL REMARKS.

The linguistic classification of the South American tribes offers far greater difficulties than that of North America. Not only has it been studied less diligently, but the geographical character of the interior, the facilities with which tribes move along its extensive water-ways, and the less stable temperament of the white population have combined to obscure the relationship of the native tribes and to limit our knowledge about them.

The first serious attempt to take a comprehensive survey of the idioms of this portion of the continent was that of the Abbé Hervas in his general work on the languages of the globe.[218] Balbi and Adelung did scarcely more than pursue the lines he had traced in this portion of the field. So little had these obtained definite results that Alexander von Humboldt renounced as impracticable the arrangement of South American tribes by their languages, because “more than seven-eighths would have remained what the classifying botanists call incertæ sedis.”[219]

This eminent naturalist, however, overlooked no opportunity to collect material for the study of the native tongues, and on his return to Europe placed what he had secured in the hands of his distinguished brother for analysis. William von Humboldt, who was the profoundest linguist of his day, gave close attention to the subject, but rather from a purely critical than an ethnographic aspect. He based upon the South American languages many principles of his linguistic philosophy; but so little general attention was given the subject that his most valuable study was first given to the press by myself in 1885.[220]

Sixty years ago the French traveler, Alcide D’Orbigny, published his important work devoted to South American Ethnography, but confined to that portion of the continent he had visited, south of the parallel of 12° south latitude.[221] His classification was based partly on language, partly on physical traits, and as it seemed simple and clear, it has retained its popularity quite to the present day. He subsumes all the tribes in the area referred to under three “races,” subdivided into “branches” and “nations” as follows:—

1. Ando-Peruvian Race.
Branch.Nations.
1. Peruvian.Quichuas.
Aymaras.
Chancos.
Atacamas.
2. Andean.
(Antisian.)		Yuracares.
Mocetenes.
Tacanas.
Maropas.
Apolistas.
3. Araucanian.Aucas.
Fuegians.
2. Pampean Race.
Branch.Nations.
1. Pampean.Tehuelches.
Puelches.
Charruas.
Mbocobis.
Mataguayos.
Abipones.
Lenguas.
2. Chiquitean.Samucus.
Chiquitos.
Saravecas.
Otuquis.
Curuminacas.
Covarecas.
Curaves.
Tapiis.
Curucanecas.
Paiconecas.
Corabecas.
3. Moxean.Moxos.
Chapacuras.
Itonamas.
Canichanas.
Mobimas.
Cayuvavas.
Pacaguaras.
Itenes.
3. Brasilio-Guaranian Race.
Nations.
Guaranis.
Botocudos.

In this classification, the distinctions of “races” and “branches” are based exclusively on physical characteristics, and are at times in conflict with a linguistic arrangement. The Botocudos and Guaranis, for instance, are wholly dissimilar and should no more be classed together than the Peruvians and the Tupis; the Saravecas and Paiconecas speak Arawak dialects; and other examples could be cited. When D’Orbigny confined himself to the identification of related tribes by a close scrutiny of their idioms, he rendered valuable service by introducing order into the chaotic nomenclature of earlier writers, as he forcibly points out; but his physical discriminations are of little value.

About the middle of this century, two German travelers, Von Tschudi and Von Martius, gave close attention to the linguistic ethnology of the continent, Von Tschudi in Peru and Von Martius in Brazil. The former found the field so unoccupied that he did not hesitate to write in a work published less than ten years ago, “In fact, the knowledge of the languages of South America is to-day less than it was two hundred years ago.”[222] His own divisions of the linguistic regions (Sprachgebiete) of the continent is less satisfactory than we might expect. He describes three principal and seven minor districts, the former being, 1. The Pampo-Andean; 2. The inter-Andean; and 3. The Tupi-Guarani regions. The minor centers are, 1. The Arawak-Carib region; 2. That of Cundinamarca; 3. The Rio Meta; 4. The Rio Tolima; 5. The Rio Atrato; 6. The Rio Salado; 7. The Chaco; 8. That of the Moxos.

These are so far from meeting the requirements of our linguistic possessions at present that scarcely one of them can be accepted. Von Tschudi was an able and critical scholar in his particular field, that of the Kechua tongue, but he had not made a wide study of South American languages.

Von Martius was much more of a comparative linguist. His work on the ethnography and linguistics of South America[223] is a mine of general information, and indispensable to every student of the subject. Taking the numerous and confused dialects of Brazil, and the almost hopeless synonymy of its tribal names, he undertook a classification of them by establishing verbal and grammatical similarities. It is now generally recognized that he went too far in this direction. He maintained, for instance, that there is a demonstrable relationship between the Tupi, the Carib, and the Arawak stocks; later studies have not endorsed this, but have tended to show that they cannot be traced to any common mother-speech. What Martius called the “Guck” nations, which he brought into connection through the word of that sound used by them to designate the paternal uncle, are now considered to be without general relationship. The researches of Karl Von Den Steinen and Lucien Adam have overthrown this theory.

It is especially in studying the vast and largely unexplored regions watered by the upper streams of the mighty Amazon, that one is yet at a loss to bring the native inhabitants into ethnic order. Of the various explorers and travellers who have visited that territory, few have paid attention to the dialects of the natives, and of those few, several have left their collections unpublished. Thus, I have been unable to learn that Richard Spruce, who obtained numerous vocabularies along the Amazon and its branches, gave them to the press; and there were in the hands of Von Tschudi more than a hundred vocabularies collected by the German naturalist, Johannes Natterer, in the interior of Brazil,[224] most of which I learn are still in manuscript. In default of material such as this, the classification of the tribes of Brazil must remain imperfect.

It is also a matter of much regret that no copy can be found of the work of the celebrated missionary, Alonso de Barcena, Lexica et Precepta in quinque Indorum Linguis, published at Lima, in 1590—if, indeed, it was ever really printed. It contained grammars of the Kechua, Aymara, Yunca, Puquina and Katamareña, (spoken by the Calchaquis). Of the two last mentioned idioms no other grammar is known, which makes the complete disappearance of this early printed book particularly unfortunate. Another Jesuit, Father Guillaume D’Étré, wrote out the catechism and instructions for the sacraments in eighteen languages of eastern Peru and the upper Orinoco;[225] but this, too, seems lost.

Of late years no one has paid such fruitful attention to the relationship and classification of the South American tribes and languages as M. Lucien Adam. Although I have not in all points followed his nomenclature, and have not throughout felt in accordance with his grouping, I have always placed my main dependence on his work in the special fields he has selected—the three great South American families of the Amazon region, the Arawak (called by him the Maypure), the Carib, and the Tupi.[226]

The general plan which I shall adopt is rather for convenience of arranging the subject than for reasons based on similarities either of language or physical habitus. It is that which allows the presentation of the various stocks most in accordance with their geographic distribution and their historic associations.

It is as follows:

I.The South Pacific group.
1.The Columbian region.
2.The Peruvian region.
II.The South Atlantic group.
1.The Amazonian region.
2.The Pampean region.