SOUTH AMERICAN TRIBES.
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.