1. The Wataree;

1. The Wataree;

2. The Eeno--Compare this name with the Texian Ini;

3. The Chowah, or Chowan;

4. The Congaree;

5. The Nachee--Compare with Natchez; word for word;

6. The Yamassee;

7. The Coosah--Compare (word for word) Coosada, and Coshatta.

In the South lay the Timuacana--of which a few words beyond the numerals are given.

In West Florida and Alabama, the evidence (I still follow the Mithridates) of Dr. Pratz scarcely coincides with that of the account of Alvaz Nuñez de Vaca. This runs thus.

In the island of Malhado were spoken languages of

1. The Caoques; 2. The Han.

On the coast--

3. The Choruico--Cherokee? 4. The Doguenes. 5. The Mendica. 6. The Quevenes. 7. The Mariames. 8. The Gualciones. 9. The Yguaces. 10. The Atayos--Adahi? This seems to have been a native name--"_die sich Atayos nennen_." 11. The Acubadaos. 12. The Quitoles. 13. The Avavares--Avoyelles? 14. The Muliacone. 15. The Cutalchiche. 16. The Susola. 17. The Como. 18. The Camole.

Of migrants from the East to the West side of the Mississippi, the Mithridates gives--

1. The Pacana, conterminous with the Attacapas. 2. The Pascagula. 3. The Biluxi. 4. The Appalache.

The Taensa are stated to be a branch of the Natchez.

The Caouitas are, perhaps, word for word the Conchattas; also the Coosa, Coosada, Coshatta.

The _Stincards_ are, word for word, the Tancards = _Tuncas_ = _Tunicas_.

Dr. Sibley gives us _Chetimacha_ as a name; along with specimens of the Chetimacha, Uche, Natchez, Adahi, and Attacapa as languages.

Word for word, _Chetimacha_ seems to _Checimeca_; _Appelusa_, _Apalach_; _Biluxi_ (perhaps the same); _Pascagoula_, _Muscogulge_. How, however, did _Chichimeca_ get so far westwards?

We are scarcely, in the condition to speculate much concerning details of the kind. It is sufficient to repeat the notice that the native languages of the parts in question are in a fragmentary condition; the Uche being the chief representative of them. Whether it were _Savaneric_[49], or not, is uncertain. It is, certainly, _not_ Shawanno, or Shawno, _i. e._ Algonkin. On the contrary it is, as is to be expected, from the encroachments and displacements of its neighbourhood a very isolated language--not, however without miscellaneous affinities--_inter alia_ the following.

[Footnote 49: More languages than one are thus named. See _p._ 375 for a Savaneric in Veragua.]

_English_ sky. Uche _haipoung_. Chiccasaw _abbah_. Catawba _wahpeeh_.

_English_ day. Uche _uckkah_. Attacapa _iggl_. Cherokee _ikah_. Muskoje _hiyiaguy_ = _light_. Cherokee _egah_ = _do_. Catawba _heakuh_ = _do_. Delaware _wakheu_ = _do_. Narrag _wequai_ = _do_. Mapach _do_ = _do_.

_English_ summer. Uche _waitee_. Adaize _weetsuck_.

_English_ winter. Uche _wishtuh_. Natchez _kwishitsetakop_. Chiccasaw _hustolah_. Seneca _oushat_.

_English_ wind. Uche _ahwitauh_. Caddo _houeto_. Muskoje _hotalleye_.

_English_ rain. Uche _chaah_. Chetimacha _kaya_. Attacapa _caucau_. Caddo _cawiohe_.

_English_ river. Uche _tauh_. Salish _saiulk_. Catawba _eesauh_.

_English_ tree. Uche _yah_. Caddo _yako_. Attacapa _kagg_. Catawba _yup_. Quappa _yon_. Esquimaux _keiyu_ = _wood_. Yancton _cha_ = _wood_. Catawba _yay_ = _oak_.

_English_ leaf. Uche _yahsuh_. Muskoghe _ittohise_ = _hair of tree_ = _itta tree_. Chiccasaw _hoshsha_. Choctah _itte hishe_.

_English_ deer. Uche _wayung_. Adahi _wakhine_. Cherokee _ahwhih_.

_English_ bear. Uche _ptsaka_. Natchez _tsokohp_.

_English_ bird. Uche _psenna_. Caddo _bunnit_. Tuscar _tcheenuh_. Ilinois _pineusen_. Ottawa _bennaisewug_. Ojibbwa _pinaisi_.

_English_ fish. Uche _potshoo_. Caddo _batta_. Minetari _boa_.

Such our sketch of the details. They give us more affinities than the current statements concerning the _glossarial_ differences between the languages of the New World suggest. It is also to be added that they scarcely confirm the equally common doctrine respecting their _grammatical_ likeness. Doing this, they encourage criticism, and invite research.

There is a considerable amount of affinity: but it is often of that miscellaneous character which baffles rather than promotes classification.

There is a considerable amount of affinity; but it does not, always, shew itself on the surface. I will give an instance.

One of the first series of words to which philologues who have only vocabularies to deal with have recourse, contains the numerals; which are, in many cases, the first of words that the philological collector makes it his business to bring home with him from rude countries. So generally is this case that it may safely be said that if we are without the numerals of a language we are, in nine cases out of ten, without any sample at all of it. Their value as samples for philological purposes has been noticed in more than one paper of the present writer's here and elsewhere; their value in the way of materials for a history of Arithmetic being evident--evidently high.

But the ordinary way in which the comparisons are made between the numerals gives us, very often, little or nothing but broad differences and strong contrasts. Take for instance the following tables.

ENGLISH. ESKIMO. ALEUTIAN. KAMSKADALE.

_one_ atamek attakon kemmis. _two_ malgok alluk nittanu. _three_ pinajut kankun tshushquat. _four_ istamat thitshin tshashcha. _five_ tatlimat sshang koomdas.

No wonder that the tongues thus represented seem unlike.

But let us go farther--in the first place remembering that, in most cases, it is only as far as _five_ that the ruder languages have distinct numerals; in other words that from _six_ onwards they count upon the same principle as _we_ do after ten, _i. e._ they join together some two, or more, of the previous numerals; even as we, by adding _seven_ and _ten_, make _seven-teen_. The exact details, of course, differ; the general principle, however, is the same viz.: that after _five_ the numerals become, more or less, compound, just as, with us, they become so after _ten_.

With this preliminary observation let us ask what will be the Kamskadale for _seven_ when _nittanu_ = _two_, and _kumdas_ = _five_. The answer is either _nittanu-kumdas_ or _kumdas-nittanu_. But the Kamskadale happens to have a separate word for _six_, viz. _kiekoas_. What then? The word for _seven_ may be one of two things: it may be either = 6 + 1, or 5 + 2. The former being the case, and _kemmis_ = _one_, the Kamskadale for _seven_ should be either _kemmis-kilkoas_ or _kilkoas-kemmis_. But it is neither one nor the other. It is _ittakh-tenu_. Now as _eight_ = _tshok-tenu_ we know this word to be compound. But what are its elements? We fail to find them amongst the simpler words expressive of _one_, _two_, _three_, _four_, _five_. We fail to find them amongst these if we look to the Kamskadale only--not, however, if we go farther. The Aleutian for _one_ = _attak-on_; the Aleutian for _six_ = _attu-on_. And what might be the Aleutian for _seven_? Even _attakh-attun_, little more than _ittakh tenu_ in a broader form.

The Jukahiri gives a similar phenomenon.

Such is the notice of the care with which certain comparisons should be made before we venture to commit ourselves to negative statements.

There is an affinity amongst the American languages, and (there being this) there are also the elements of a classification. The majority, however, of the American languages must be classified according to _types_ rather than _definitions_. Upon the nature of this difference, as well as upon the cause I have written more fully elsewhere. It is sufficient for present purposes to say that it applies to the languages of North America in general, and (of these) to those of the parts beyond the Rocky Mountains more especially. Eskimo characteristics appear in the Athabaskan, Athabaskan in the Koluch forms of speech. From these the Haidah leads to the Chimmesyan (which is, nevertheless, a very outlying form of speech) and the Hailtsa, akin to the Billechula, which, itself, leads to the Atna. By slightly raising the value of the class we bring in the Kutani, the Nutkan and the Chinuk.

In the Chinuk neighbourhood we move _via_ the Jakon, Kalapuya, Sahaptin, Shoshoni, and Lutuami to the languages of California and the Pueblos; and thence southwards.

In American languages simple comparison does but little. We may test this in two ways. We may place, side by side, two languages known to be undoubtedly, but also known to be not very closely, allied. Such, for instance, are the German and Greek, the Latin and Russian, the English and Lithuanic, all of which are Indo-European, and all of which, when placed in simple juxta-position, by no means show themselves in any very palpable manner as such. This may be seen from the following table, which is far from being the first which the present writer has compiled; and that with the special view of ascertaining by induction (and not _a priori_) the value of comparisons of the kind in question.

ENGLISH. LATIN. CAYUSE. WILLAMET.

man homo yúant atshánggo. woman mulier pintkhlkaiu pummaike. father _pater_ píntet sima. mother _mater_ penín sinni. son filius wái tawakhai. daughter filia wái tshitapinna. head _caput_ talsh tamutkhl. hair crinis tkhlokomot amutkhl. ear _auris_ taksh pokta. eye _oculus_ hăkamush kwalakkh. nose _nasus_ pitkhloken unan. mouth os sumkhaksh mandi. tongue _lingua_ push mamtshutkhl. tooth _dens_ tenif púti. hand manus epip tlakwa. fingers digiti épip alakwa. feet _pedes_ tish puüf. blood sanguis tiweush méëuu. house domus nisht hammeih (--fire). axe securis yengthokinsh khueshtan. knife culter shekt hekemistāh. shoes calcei taitkhlo ulumóf. sky cœlum adjalawaia amiank. sun _sol_ huewish ampiun. moon _luna_ katkhltóp utap. star _stella_ tkhlikhlish atuininank. day _dies_ eweiu umpium. night _nox_ ftalp atitshikim. fire ignis tetsh hamméih. water aqua iskkainish mampuka. rain pluvia tishtkitkhlmiting ukwíï. snow _nix_ poi nukpeik. earth terra lingsh hunkhalop. river _rivus_ lushmi mantsal. stone lapis ápit andi. tree arbor lauik huntawatkhl. meat caro pithuli umhók. dog canis náapang mantal. beaver castor pieka akaipi. bear ursa limeaksh alotufan. bird avis tianiyiwa pōkalfuna. great magnus yaúmua pul. cold frigidus shunga pángkafiti. white albus tkhlaktkhláko kommóu. black niger shkupshkúpu maieum. red ruber lakaitlakaitu tshal. I _ego_ ining tshii. thou _tu_ niki máha. he ille nip kak. one _unus_ na wáän. two _duo_ leplin kéën. three _tres_ matnin upshin. four _quatuor_ piping táope. five _quinque_ táwit húwan. six _sex_ nóiná taf. seven _septem_ nóilip pshinimua. eight _octo_ nōimát kēëmúa. nine _novem_ tanáuiaishimshin wanwaha. ten _decem_ ningitelp tínifia.

Again--the process may be modified by taking two languages known to be _closely_ allied, and asking how far a _simple_ comparison of their vocabularies exhibits that alliance on the surface, _e. g._:--

ENGLISH. BEAVER INDIAN. CHIPPEWYAN.

one it la day ittla hē. two onk shay day nank hay. three ta day ta he. four dini day dunk he. five tlat zoon e de ay sa soot la he. six int zud ha l'goot ha hé. seven ta e wayt zay tluz ud dunk he. eight etzud een tay l'goot dung he. nine kala gay ne ad ay itla ud ha. ten kay nay day hona. a man taz eu dinnay you. a woman iay quay tzay quay. a girl id az oo ed dinna gay. a boy taz yuz é dinnay yoo azay. interpreter nao day ay dinnay tee ghaltay. trader meeoo tay ma kad ray. moose-deer tlay tchin tay tunnehee hee. rein-deer may tzee ed hun. beaver tza tza. dog tlee tlee. rabbit kagh kagh. bear zus zus. wolf tshee o nay noo nee yay. fox e yay thay nag hee dthay.

The difference is great: but the two forms of speech are mutually intelligible. On the other hand, the Cayuse and Willamet are more alike than the English and Latin.

Next to the details of our method, and the principles of our classification, the more important of the special questions command attention. Upon the relations of the Eskimo to the other languages of America I have long ago expressed my opinion. I now add the following remarks upon the prevalence of the doctrine which separated them.

Let us imagine an American or British ethnologist speculating on the origin and unity of the European populations and arriving, in the course of his investigations, at Finmark, or any of those northern parts of Scandinavia where the Norwegian and Laplander come in immediate geographical contact. What would be first? Even this--close geographical contact accompanied by a remarkable contrast in the way of the ethnology: difference in habits, difference in aptitudes, difference in civilisation, difference of creed, difference of physical form, difference of language.

But the different manner in which the southern tribes of Lapland comport themselves in respect to their nearest neighbours, according as they lie west or east, illustrates this view. On the side of Norway few contrasts are more definite and striking than that between the nomad Lap with his reindeer, and reindeer-skin habiliments and the industrial and highly civilized Norwegian. No similarity of habits is here; no affinity of language; little on intermixture, in the way of marriage. Their physical frames are as different as their moral dispositions no and social habits. Nor is this difficult to explain. The Norwegian is not only a member of another stock, but his original home was in a southern, or comparatively southern, climate. It was Germany rather Scandinavia; for Scandinavia was, originally, exclusively Lap or Fin. But the German family encroached northwards; and by displacement after displacement obliterated those members of the Lap stock whose occupancy was Southern and Central Scandinavia, until nothing was left but its extreme northern representatives in the most northern and least favored parts of the peninsula. By these means two strongly contrasted populations were brought in close geographical contact--this being the present condition all along the South Eastern, or Norwegian, boundary of Lapland.

But it is by no means the present condition of those parts of Russian Lapland where the Lap population touches that of Finland Proper.

Here, although the Lap and Fin differ, the difference lies within a far narrower limit than that which divides the Lap from the Norwegian or the Swede. The stature of the Lap is less than that of the Fin; though the Fin is more short than tall, and the Lap is far from being so stunted as books and pictures make him. The habits, too, differ. The reindeer goes with the Lap; the cow with the Fin. Other points differ also. On the whole, however, the Fin physiognomy is Lap, and the Lap Fin; and the languages are allied.

Furthermore--the Fin graduates into the Wotiak, the Zirianean, the Permian; the Permian into the Tsheremiss, the Mordvin &c. In other words, if we follow the Lap eastwards we come into a whole fancy of congeners. On the west, however, the further we went, the less Lap was everything. Instead of being Lap it was Norwegian, Swedish, Danish, or German. The last of those, however, would lead us into the Sarmatian family, and this would bring us round to the Fins of South Finland. The time, however, may come when Russia will have so encroached upon the Fin populations to the south of the Arctic Circle as for the Lap and Slave to come in immediate contact; and when this contact is effected there will be contrast also--contrast less strong, perhaps, than that between the Lap and Swede, but still contrast.

_Mutatis mutandis_--this seems to have been the case with the Eskimo and the North American Indians as they are popularly called--popularly but inaccurately; inasmuch as the present writer considers the Eskimo to be as truly American as any other occupants of the soil of America. On the East there has been encroachment, displacement, and, as an effect thereof, two strongly contrasted populations in close geographical contact--viz.: the Eskimos and the northern members of the Algonkin family. On the west, where the change has been less, the Athabaskans, the Kolutshes, and the Eskimos graduate to each other, coming under the same category, and forming part of one and the same class; that class being by no means a narrow, though not an inordinately, wide one.

Another special question is that concerning the origin of the Nahuatl, Astecs, or Mexicans. The maritime hypothesis I have abandoned. The doctrine that their civilisation was Maya I retain. I doubt, however, whether they originated anywhere. By this I mean that they are, though not quite _in situ_, nearly so. In the northermost parts of their area they may so entirely. When I refined on this--the common sense--view of them I was, like many others, misled by the peculiar phonesis. What it is may be better seen by an example than explained. Contrast the two following columns. How smoothly the words on the right run, how harshly sound (when they can be sounded) those of the left. Not, however, that they give us the actual sounds of the combination _khl_ &c. All that this means is that there is some extraordinary sound to be expressed that no simple sign or no common combination will represent. In Mr. Hale's vocabularies it is represented by a single special sign.

ENGLISH. SELISH. CHINUK. SHOSHONI.

_man_ skaltamekho tkhlekala taka. _woman_ s_u_maăm tkhlākél kw_uu_. _boy_ skokosea tklkask_u_s natsi. _girl_ shaut_u_m tklalekh naints_u_ts. _child_ akt_u_lt etshanúks wa. _father_ l_u_áus tkhliamáma ápui. _mother_ skúis tkhlianáa pia. _wife_ makhonakh iuakhékal wépui. _son_ skokosea etsokha natsi. _daughter_ st_u_mtshäălt okw_u_kha nanai. _brother_ katshki (elder) kapkhu tamye. _sister_ tklkikee tkhliau namei.

Now if the Astec phonesis be more akin to the Selish and its congeners than to the Shoshoni and other interjacent forms of speech, we get an element of affinity which connects the more distant whilst it separates the nearer languages. Overvalue this, and you may be misled.

Now, not to mention the fact of this phonesis being an overvalued character, there is clear proof in the recent additions to the comparative philology of California that its distribution is, by no means, what it was, originally, supposed to be. This may be seen from the following lists.

_From the North of California._

(1.)

ENGLISH. WISH-OSK. WIYOT.

_boy_ ligeritl kushama. _married_ wehowut'l haqueh. _head_ wutwetl metwet. _hair_ pah'tl paht'l. _face_ kahtsouetl sulatek. _beard_ tseh'pl cheh'pl. _body_ tah hit'l. _foot_ wehlihl wellih'tl. _village_ mohl katswah'tl. _chief_ kowquéh'tl kaiowuh. _axe_ mahtl mehtl. _pipe_ maht'letl mahtlel. _wind_ rahtegut'l ruktagun. _duck_ hahalitl hahahlih.

(2.)

ENGLISH. HUPAH. TAHLEWAH.

_neck_ hosewatl ---- _village_ ---- wah'tlki. _chief_ ---- howinnequutl. _bow_ ---- chetlta. _axe_ mehlcohlewatl ----

_In the South of California._

ENGLISH. DUGUNO. CUCHAN.

_leg_ ewith'l misith'l. _to-day_ enyat'l ---- _to-morrow_ matinyat'l ---- _bread_ meyut'l ---- _ear_ hamat'l smyth'l. _neck_ ---- n'yeth'l. _arm_ } selh iseth'l. _hand_ } _friend_ ---- nyet'l. _feather_ ---- sahwith'l.

I cannot conclude without an expression of regret that the great work of Adelung is still only in the condition of a second, or (at best) but a third edition. There is Vater's Supplement, and Jülg's Supplement to Vater. But there is nothing that brings it up to the present time.

Much might be done by Buschmann and perhaps others. But this is not enough. It requires translation. The few French writers who treat on Ethnological Philology know nothing about it. The Italians and Spanish are, _a fortiori_, in outer darkness as to its contents. The Russians and Scandinavians know all about it--but the Russians and Scandinavians are not the scholars in whose hands the first hand information falls first. The Americans know it but imperfectly. If Turner has had easy access to it, Gallatin had not: whilst Hales, with great powers, has been (with the exception of his discovery of the Athabaskan affinities of the Umkwa and Tlatskanai, out of which Turner's fixation of the Apatch, Navaho, and Jecorilla, and, afterwards, my own of the Hoopah, seems to have been developed,) little more than a collector--a preeminent great collector--of raw materials. Nevertheless, the Atna class is his.

However, the Mithridates, for America at least, wants translation as well as revision. It is a work in which many weak points may be (and have been) discovered. Klaproth, himself a man who (though he has saved many an enquirer much trouble) has but few friends, has virulently attacked it. Its higher classifications are, undoubtedly, but low. Nevertheless, it is not only a great work, but the basis of all others. Should any one doubt its acumen let him read the part which, treating on the Chikkasah, demurrs to the identification of the Natchez with that and other forms of speech. Since it was written a specimen of the Natchez language has shewn its validity.

I think that the Natchez has yet to take its full importance. If the language of the _Taensas_ it was, probably, the chief language of _Tennessee_. But the Creek, or Muscogulge, broke it up. Meanwhile the fragmentary Catawba, with which I believe that the Caddo was connected had its congeners far to westward.

I also think that the Uche represents the old language of Florida--the Cherokee being conterminous with the Catawba. If so, the doctrine of the fundamental affinity between the Pawni, Caddo, Catawba, and Cherokee gains ground.

The Uche demands special investigation. The Tinquin and Timuacana should be compared with it. Then why are they not? Few works are more inaccessible than a Spanish _Arte_, _Diccionario_, or _Catecismo_. The _data_ for these enquiries, little known, are still less attainable. Without these, and without a minute study, of the first-hand authorities we can do but little but suggest. All that is suggested here is that the details of Florida (in its widest sense) and Louisiana must be treated under the doctrine that the aborigines are represented by the congeners of the Woccon, Catawba, Uche, Natchez, Tinquin, and Timuacana, inordinately displaced by the Cherokees and Creeks; who (for a great extent of their present area) must be considered as intrusive.