IMAGE EVALUATION TEST TARGET (MT-3) V ^ / .// O ^^fh Z?< ■

The suggestive programme of the Congress, in presenting the question „Avhether there are any grammatical affinities between the languages of the western coast of America and those of Polynesia", proposes an inquiry of great interest. Authors who have written on the subject of the peopling of America have naturally had their attention drawn to the vast archipelago of small islands Avhich seem to form stepping- stones across the Pacific between the two continents. Not a few writers, moved by certain superficial resemblances between the Polynesians and the Americans, and by well-authenticated accounts of long voyages which have been made by the is- landers, have boldly assumed that at least one stream of emi- gration has reached the New World by this route. Some have even undertaken to ])oint out the very course, or courses, which the voyagers pursued. On this particular point the opinions have varied widely. Some bring the Polynesian emigrants from the Hawaiian Islands to North America, while others ti'ace them from the Tahitian group, through the Low Archi- pelago and the Gambler cluster, or by way of Easter Island, to the southern portion of the continent. More cautious inquirers, however, have reserved their opinion in regard to this supposed Polynesian migration until it can be based on the only evidence which in such a question is decisive, — that of linguistic affinity. It was by this evi- dence that the connection between the Polynesians and the Malayans was determined. The like evidence* has shown that the populafion of Madagascar was derived, not from Africa, as might naturally have been supposed, but from a Malayo- Polynesian source. If a genetic connection between the Ameri- can aborigines and the Polynesians is to be established, it can only be by similar evidence. In this view the question pro- posed in the programme assumes a peculiar importance. In attacking this problem, we are met at the threshold by what seems, at the first sight, an enormous and almost in- surmountable difficulty This obstacle is found in the aston- CONGRKS PES AMERTCAXTSTES. 1 isliiiijT rnimbor of totally distinct laiio-naft'es which are spoken in the reo-iou hordeviiiii' on tlie west coast of America. To ap- preciate tills (lifHculty, we niayj contj-nst it with the simplicity of the problem which encountered those scholars who, in the last ctiitury, had to inquire into the connection between the Polynesian islanders and the races of Eastern Asia. Here the nunibei- of continental languao-es was small, and several of them. com])osino- the monosylhibic «::froap, were so uttt.'rl}' alien in character i'> the J^olvnesian ton^'ues that no connection witli them could r(,'asonably be imai^ined. The comparison was practi- cally narrowed down to some tive or six idioms, — tlie Malayan family, the Corean hmguage. the Japanese, the Ainu, and possibly one or two more northern tongues. In making this comparison, the resembliuice between the Polynesian and the ^Malayan idioms became so instantly and decisively ap- parent that no doubt as to the conclusion could be felt b}' any scientific student of language. On the American side, all is dilterent. AVc find a- long stretch of sea-coast, extending from north to south more than seven thousand miles, and inhabited by numerous tribes, speaking a vast ninnber of distinct idioms, no one of which has any peculiar predominance, or ])resents an}' special cha]'a(?teristics inviting a comparison with the Polynesian tongues. The latest researches have shown that the total number of AuK^rican languages spoken on or near the Pacific coast considerably exceecs a httndred , and that these belong to at least forty distinct stocks. Dn the latter point I can speak with some confidence. In making the ethnographic survey of Oregon, I foimd within the nari-ow limits of that territory, ext(!nding from Puget's sound to the northern boundary of California, and covering only seven degrees of latitude, no less than twenty-three languages, belonging to twelve stocks as distinct from one another as the Malayan is from the Japanese. But of this large number of western American families, not one half have been studied grammatically. Of the rest we have merely vocabularies. This circumstance, while it might seem to lighten the labor of the comparison, would at the same time I „ ClN(n'lKMK SESSION OIlDIXATIiK. ,. leave it imperfect and ineoiiclnsive. To decide upon the con- nection of two lan<>ua<^es without some knowledge of their gram- matical forms is seldom entirely safe. It there are actually more tlian twenty stock- languages in this i-cgion, of whosf grammar nothing is known, it would seem clear that a compa- rison of the Polynesian tongues with the smaller numbtM* which have been studied can lead to no decisive result. But this difficult}', great as it seems, may be in a large measure overcome by the resources of linguistic science. Although, as has l>een said, we possess onl}' vocabularies of the greatei' number of American coast idioms, yet, most fortunately, these vocabularies generallj' include what is really that portion of the grammar of each tongue which is of the first importance for determining the relationship of languages, — namely, the pronouns. It is only in recent times that the value of tliesi' elements in ascertaining the connection of tongues has become fully apparent to philologists. By their aid some of the most difficult and imi)ortant problems in linguistic science have been solved. It is mainl)' through the clear evidence afforded by the comparison of the pronouns in the Semitic and Hamitic (or North African) tongues that we are now enabled to speak with confidence of a Hamito-Semitic family. The certainty that all the languages of Australia belong to one linguisti(^ stock was acquired chiefly by i comparison of their pronouns. A glance at these ])ronouns, as they^ are brough'" together in the great work of Dr. Friedrich Miiller, his ,,Grundriss der Spracliwissenscliaft", leaves no possibility of doubt on this head. Again, as the same high authority jioints out, it is mainly by a comparison of the pronouns that the connection which Buschman traced between the Nahuatl tongue and the languages of Sonora and other northwestern provinces of Mexico is made clearly manifest. And, finally, it was chiefly through a comparison of the pronouns of the Iroquois and Cherokee languages that the affinity of these languages, which had long- been suspected by philologists, was finally established. This comparison, I may add, was made by me in an essay which was read in 1882 before the Section of Anthropology in the ft COXCtHES l»i;s AMKKirAN'ISTKS. American Association for the Advancement of Science, and was afterwards published in the ..American Antiquarian" for lHM;i, and thence reproduced in panipldet form. A prominent mend>er of this Congress, in tlic meeting of 1884, at Copen- liagcn. witli that pamphlet before him, criticized shari)ly my views on this point, and expressed his dissent from them in terms of severity not usual in scientific discussions. I think I may venture to presume that that gentleman is now satisfied of the correctness of my conclusions. He will not, I am sure, question the authority of 'Mr. A. S. (latschet, the distinguished linguist of tilt' American Bui'eau of Ethnoloo-v. Since mv essay was publisu^d , Mr. (Jatschet has caretully studied and compared the two languages, with a result entirely confirma- tory of my views. This conclusion, sustained by ample data, was announced in a communication to the American Philo- logical Association, and again in his important work on the ..Migration Legend of the Creek Indians"'. In the second volume of this work, recentl}' published, at page 70, he says, briefly but positively. — ::'I'lie Cherokee is an Iroquois dialect from northern parts, but was settled in the Apalachian mountains from time immemorial". As the ([uestion, liowever, is one of much importance, and is to be decided, not by autliority, but bv evidence, — and as t.lie value of this evidence has a direct bearing on our j)resent incpiir}', -- its production here seems to be desirable. Recent inquiries, it may be added, have given a peculiar interest to this connection Ijetween the Iroquois and the Cherokees relative to the pre-Columbian history of North America, and especially in regard to the origin of the great earthworks of the (.)hio valley. An association of Americanists cannot be willing that an erroi- on such a ])oint shall remain uncorrected in their published reports, however respectable may be the source from which this error proceeds. I may, therefore, be allowed to present a brief extract from my essay already referred to, (;omprising the grammatical evidence on which the opinion of this connection was based. Different minds have different opinions of what constitutes proof in such matters ; but I think very few philologists will hesitate to ^ J J ClNQl'IKMK SKSSION OUDINAIHK. \ aocejjt as deciHive the evidence contained in the following passages. „Tho similarity of the two tongues (the Iroqnois and the Cherokee) apparent enough in many of their words, is most strikingly shown, as might be expected, in their grammatical structure, and especially in the affixed pronouns, which in both languages [play so important a part. The resemblance may perhaps be best shown by giving the pronouns in the form in which they are combined with a suffixed syllable, to render the meaning expressed by the English self or alone, — „I myself", or „I alone" : Ii'oquuis Cherokee ak o n h ii a a k w ii haw h s o fi h ;i a t sii fis u fi rao a h ii a ( h ao fi li ri a ) uwas ii fi o 11 k i 11 o n h M a g i n ii n s 1 1 fi senofihaa (Huron. stonJifia'i istiifisiifi onkiorJiria ikiirisiifi tsionhfia (Huron, tsofihaa) irsiifisiiu ronoiiliria (lionouhrial unn fisii ft." „If from the foregoing list we omit the terminal suffixes haa and siin, which differ in the two languages, the close resemblance of the prefixed pronouns is apparent. To form the verbal transitions, as they are termed, in which the action of a transitive verb passes from an agent to an object, both languages prefix the pronouns, in a combined form, to the verb, saying ,,1-thee love", „thou-me lovest", and the like. These combined pronouns are similar in the two languages, as the following examples will show : I alone Tliou alone He alone We two alone Ye two alone W(! alone ^\A.) Ye alone Thev alone 1-thee l-hini He-iue He-US Tliou-hiin Thou-them They-me They-us Iroqnois k Oil. o !• k o fi y e ria, hia raka, liaka s o f 1 k w a Ilia s'lieia I'ofike, liofike V o fi k e Cherokee g u M y a t s i \' a a k w a teawka hiya tegihya g u n k w a teyp,wka." ') The Huron is the mother-tongue of tlie Iroquois dialects. In the words comprised in tliese lists, the letters have the Uerman sounds except that the u represents the Trench nasal n, and the u is the short English M in but. 8 COXORKS HKS AMKKICAXISTKS. A (.'ouipavativo list ot other comiiKni words in tlic two laii materials are at hand, with those of the leading' Polynesian tongU(^s. In the latter I have had recom-se to my ..Comjiarative Grammar of the Poly- nesian Dialects". As this grainunir, though ptiblished in 1^46, has not been superseded by an}' later compendium, and as it is cited by 1)''. iNEiUler in his recent work as still the best authority in the subject, the reference to it for this purpose will not be deemed presum])tuous. For the American languages I ha\'e consulted (besi(h'S m\' own collections in Oregon) the works of Gallatin, Dall, Pc^titot, Tolmie and Dawson, Boas, Powers, Bancroft, Brinton, StoU and F. ]Mtiller. The comparative list of pronouns, gathered from these sources, is annexed as an appendix to this essay. The result of this comparison must dispel all expectation, if an_y were entertained, of tracing a connection between the Polynesian and the American idioms, so far as these are now known. There is no resemblance between the pronouns of any one of the American languages and those of any Polynesian dialect, except such mere casual similarity as every investi- gator will at once ascribe to accident. The resemblance of the Thlinkit woe to the Polynesian oe, or of the Tshinuk ia/ka to the Polynesian ia, is certain!}^ not so striking as the resem- blance of the Tarascan thu and the Mixe hee to the English thou and he. It will still be proper to inqtiire whether among the American languages whose grammar has been studied, some n \ CINQUIKME SKSsloN ()|{|»1NAI i;i:. 9 similaritios to Polynesian forms cannot bo foinid. wliicli will seem worthy of further investi■, o ^ j3 ■— H -u O r~i '^ F-> ^ £ 3.2 7t f- t; rt w O § I OS 0) p^ tJ3 &C es P^ (U o o a; c 13 S ?:; S o o ^ o o d s - o o ^ 3 C O O 2 = i = o o o : J£ M .'Ji M or- = = = - = = t;ccooDcajc tiOCOOCOiUP rt ci cccsc?:rc 5 o -^ CD o o 0) c (U a; o o c c ^ _Li; ^ ^ c o r = csss2rtss oJ rt Cj ti ^ rC ^ Ct eS N o o 0) 0) iS -3 ^^:5-^ rt c3 ^ ^ rt i:^--::! fl .3 oj rt j^-j -§i iS -"S i2 3 .s "5 i>:s ^ 5 C a = ;i .S ^ .= ■■ - — ^ C3 2 sc ^ 73 .ft ■" _ 2 6C -^ -= a — ;2 -^ 3 o ;;; 3 ci = 0£ = .. ^%4 g ^ ^ ^ ^ a. ■— (B r ':= r r; — - ._ s r2 "5 "cS N; • ^^ M K' »-• ■ s* = .= = S 5 -. "S =? - '^■Jl '= i: ■" .:C' c cs - ;= ci 'Z- c *s >. 7! r^ -i^ -S .::: c -M ° 2 S-^ - Ci ci ^ r t. i .. 2= S ^ ^ s ^ « £ c i: ~ ci -e C fcr 5 -^-^ .5 ._ « »> Oh ?» 6C -^^ § M) -1-.5 fl 5 fl .3 •? 'Td ei CC -4-> 5g rJ S ^ ^ X fl a^S g P. .Z ci C d 03 i^ Oc3ciE3|^i^ii>ci^ K ^ -S S Si -H .S ^ o S ^ ^ ^ o Ci Ci ^ /;r " ^a* Ci ^ m . s -C "3 lS ."^ ^ <» .'2 ."^ r1 rC « ^ a > CINQUIEME SESSION ORDINAIKK, 15 oi J- OS £ >. OS ■■0 2 o ".;::; S c - ;o 2 s >- cfi « •- 1^ -^ ^ w .X 1 ^ O > M > « O c« .;^ ^ S aj -« S 5^^ o b ii '3 r« S ej P s a S ce .^ rt Oi v^ ::: VL/ ^ '^ ^S 5 O c . :0 ^ N ci 5 o o o -a -t ..i* ._ >, ^ ^ tit,^ 6C rt o ^ (0 (D c - -4-1 J^ ,jr >j c; a ^ ^ o '^ o 5 ^ C ■« c3 (S 2 a N S C S S S •::; -Hi 0} rC -r ?? gSSS3'S^:g^^ O) 9. ■^. U' % rt -o -i ^ cU X 4i^ — . ^ 2 5 2 T '£ «* •-■■ ^ «s =< o o o 0/ '= S 1^ c x: „, -3 ^ ^- _ 26 ^i: rt 2 *- ""^ a oj a, ^ rt ^ ^ ic ^ r. ^.^ — s >'5 t3 — o rt - .. .- — s -^ -t_ 11 . X r; ~ P- 3 -i 2 O 3 r- fl O X c Oi X 01 •- 2 _ 01 -^ O) X a ^ O o -C — o X ^ O' M)-c a &H K 5P o f^ o •4-1 "^ a; H X •- s 0) ^ X a J ,• ;^ a — "^ .S X - ij s a ^ W &:h 5 ^HH