Man, Past and Present

by A. H. Keane

But in the American order of speech there is no such limitation, and not merely the pronouns, which are restricted in number, but the nouns with their attributes, which are practically numberless, all enter necessarily into the verbal paradigm. Thus in Tarascan (Mexico): hopocuni = to wash the hands; hopodini = to wash the ears, from hoponi = to wash, which cannot be used alone[762]. So in Ipurina (Amazonia): nicuçacatçaurumatinií = I draw the cord tight round your waist, from ni, I; cuçaca, to draw tight; tça, cord; túruma, waist; tini, characteristic verbal affix; í, thy, referring to waist[763].

We see from such examples that polysynthesis is not a primitive condition of speech, as is often asserted, but on the contrary a highly developed system, in which the original agglutinative process has gone so far as to attract all the elements of the sentence to the verb, round which they cluster like swarming bees round their queen. In Eskimauan the tendency is shown in the construction of nouns and verbs, by which other classes of words are made almost unnecessary, and one word, sometimes of interminable length, is able to express a whole sentence with its subordinate clauses. H. Rink, one of the first Eskimo scholars of modern times, gives the instance: "Suérúkame-autdlásassoq-tusaramiuk-tuningingmago-iluarín-gilát = they did not approve that he (a) had omitted to give him (b) something, as he (a) heard that he (b) was going to depart on account of being destitute of everything[764]." Such monstrosities "are so complicated that in daily speech they could hardly ever occur; but still they are correct and can be understood by intelligent people[765]."

He gives another and much longer example, which the reader may be spared, adding that there are altogether about 200 particles, as many as ten of which may be piled up on any given stem. The process also often involves great phonetic changes, by which the original form of the elements becomes disguised, as, for instance, in the English hap'oth = half-penny-worth. The attempt to determine the number of words that might be formed in this way on a single stem, such as igdlo, a house, had to be given up after getting as far as the compound igdlorssualiortugssarsiumavoq = he wants to find one who will build a large house.

Stock Languages.

It is clear that such a linguistic evolution implies both the postulated isolation from other influences, which must have disturbed and broken up the cumbrous process, and also the postulated long period of time to develop and consolidate the system throughout the New World. But time is still more imperiously demanded by the vast number of stock languages, many already extinct, many still current all over the continent, all of which differ profoundly in their vocabulary, often also in their phonesis, and in fact have nothing in common except this extraordinary polysynthetic groove in which they are cast. There are probably about 75 stock languages in North America, of which 58 occur north of Mexico.

But even that conveys but a faint idea of the astonishing diversity of speech prevailing in this truly linguistic Babel. J. W. Powell[766] points out that the practically distinct idioms are far more numerous than might be inferred even from such a large number of mother tongues. Thus, in the Algonquian[767] linguistic family he tells us there are about 40, no one of which could be understood by a people speaking another; in Athapascan from 30 to 40; in Siouan over 20; and in Shoshonian a still greater number[768]. The greatest linguistic diversity in a relatively small area is found in the state of California, where, according to Powell's classification, 22 distinct stocks of languages are spoken. R. B. Dixon and A. L. Kroeber[769] show however that these fall into three morphological groups which are also characterised by certain cultural features. It is the same, or perhaps even worse, in Central and in South America, where the linguistic confusion is so great that no complete classification of the native tongues seems possible. Clements R. Markham in the third edition of his exhaustive list of the Amazonian tribes[770] has no less than 1087 entries. He concludes that these may be referred to 485 distinct tribes in all the periods, since the days of Acuña (1639). Deducting some 111 as extinct or nearly so, the total amounts to "323 at the outside" (p. 135). But for such linguistic differences, large numbers of these groups would be quite indistinguishable from each other, so great is the prevailing similarity in physical appearance and usages in many districts. Thus Ehrenreich tells us that, "despite their ethnico-linguistic differences, the tribes about the head-waters of the Xingu present complete uniformity in their daily habits, in the conditions of their existence, and their general culture[771]," though it is curious to note that the art of making pottery is restricted here to the Arawak tribes[772]. Yet amongst them are represented three of the radically distinct linguistic groups of Brazil, some (Bakaïri and Nahuqua) belonging to the Carib, some (Auetö and Kamayura) to the Tupi-Guarani, and some (Mehinaku and Vaura) to the Arawak family. Obviously these could not be so discriminated but for their linguistic differences. On the other hand the opposite phenomenon is occasionally presented of tribes differing considerably in their social relations, which are nevertheless of the same origin, or, what is regarded by Ehrenreich as the same thing, belong to the same linguistic group. Such are the Ipurina, the Paumari and the Yamamadi of the Purus valley, all grouped as Arawaks because they speak dialects of the Arawakan stock language. At the same time it should be noted that the social differences observed by some modern travellers are often due to the ever-increasing contact with the whites, who are now encroaching on the Gran Chaco plains, and ascending every Amazonian tributary in quest of rubber and the other natural produce abounding in these regions. The consequent displacement of tribes is discussed by G. E. Church[773].

In the introduction to his valuable list Clements Markham observes that the evidence of language favours the theory that the Amazonian tribes, "now like the sands on the sea-shore for number, originally sprang from two or at most three parent stocks. Dialects of the Tupi language extend from the roots of the Andes to the Atlantic, and southward into Paraguay ... and it is established that the differences in the roots, between the numerous Amazonian languages, are not so great as was generally supposed[774]." This no doubt is true, and will account for much. But when we see it here recorded that of the Carabuyanas (Japura river) there are or were 16 branches, that the Chiquito group (Bolivia) comprises 40 tribes speaking "seven different languages"; that of the Juris (Upper Amazons) there are ten divisions; of the Moxos (Beni and Mamoré rivers) 26 branches, "speaking nine or, according to Southey, thirteen languages"; of the Uaupés (Rio Negro) 30 divisions, and so on, we feel how much there is still left to be accounted for. Attempts have been made to weaken the force of the linguistic argument by the assumption, at one time much in favour, that the American tongues are of a somewhat evanescent nature, in an unstable condition, often changing their form and structure within a few generations. But, says Powell, "this widely spread opinion does not find warrant in the facts discovered in the course of this research. The author has everywhere been impressed with the fact that savage tongues are singularly persistent, and that a language which is dependent for its existence upon oral tradition is not easily modified[775]." A test case is the Delaware (Leni Lenapé), an Algonquian tongue which, judging from the specimens collected by Th. Campanius about 1645, has undergone but slight modification during the last 250 years.

In this connection the important point to be noticed is the fact that some of the stock languages have an immense range, while others are crowded together in indescribable confusion in rugged upland valleys, or about river estuaries, or in the recesses of trackless woodlands, and this strangely irregular distribution prevails in all the main divisions of the continent. Thus of Powell's 58 linguistic families in North America as many as 40 are restricted to the relatively narrow strip of coastland between the Rocky Mountains and the Pacific, ten are dotted round the Gulf of Mexico from Florida to the Rio Grande, and two disposed round the Gulf of California, while nearly all the rest of the land—some six million square miles—is occupied by the six widely diffused Eskimauan, Athapascan, Algonquian, Iroquoian, Siouan, and Shoshonian families. The same phenomenon is presented by Central and South America, where less than a dozen stock languages—Opatan, Nahuatlan, Huastecan, Chorotegan, Quichuan, Arawakan, Gesan (Tapuyan), Tupi-Guaranian, Cariban—are spread over millions of square miles, while many scores of others are restricted to extremely narrow areas. Here the crowding is largely determined, as in Caucasia, by the altitude (Andes in Colombia, Ecuador, Peru, and Bolivia; Sierras in Mexico).

Culture.

It is strongly held by many American ethnologists that the various cultures of America are autochthonous, nothing being borrowed from the Old World. J. W. Powell[776], who rendered such inestimable services to American anthropology, affirmed that "the aboriginal peoples of America cannot be allied preferentially to any one branch of the human race in the Old World"; that "there is no evidence that any of the arts of the American Indians were borrowed from the Orient"; that "the industrial arts of America were born in America, America was inhabited by tribes at the time of the beginning of industrial arts. They left the Old World before they had learned to make knives, spear and arrowheads, or at least when they knew the art only in its crudest state. Thus primitive man has been here ever since the invention of the stone knife and the stone hammer." He further contended that "the American Indian did not derive his forms of government, his industrial or decorative arts, his languages, or his mythological opinions from the Old World, but developed them in the New"; and that "in the demotic characteristics of the American Indians, all that is common to tribes of the Orient is universal, all that distinguishes one group of tribes from another in America distinguishes them from all other tribes of the world."