IMAGE EVALUATION
TEST TARGET (MT-3)

.//

^^fh

Z?<

■<p ^

1.0

I.I

1.25

'-' lil III 25
[2.0

" 1-3 2

|40

111=

U III 1.6

c-l

^/^-^

Photographic

Sciences
Corporation

23 WEST MAIN STREET

WEBSTER, NY. 14580

(716) 872-4503

G^x

ft' MP..

W-

f^/

CIHM/ICMH

Microfiche

Series.

CIHM/ICMH
Collection de
microfiches.

Canadian Institute for Historical Microreproductions Institut Canadian de microreproductions historiques

1980

Technical and Bibliographic Notes/Notes techniques et bibliographiques

The Institute has attempted to obtain the best
original copy available for filming. Features of this
copy which may be bibliographically unique,
which may alter any of the images in the
reproduction, or which may significantly change
the usual method of filming, are checked below.

D
D

Coloured covers/
Couverture de couleur

Covers damaged/
Couverture endommagde

Covers restored and/or laminated/
Couverture restaurde et/ou pellicul6e

Cover title missing/

Le titre de couverture manque

Coloured maps/

Cartes g^ographiques en couleur

Coloured ink (i.e. other than blue or black)/
Encre de couleur (i.e. autre que bleue ou noire)

Coloured plates and/or illustrations/
Planches et/ou illustrations en couleur

Bound wiih other material/
Relid avec d'autres documents

Tight binding may cause shadows or distortion
along interior margin/

La reliure serree peut causer de I'ombre ou de la
distortion le long de la marge int^rieure

Blank leaves added during restoration may
appear within the text. Whenever possible, these
have been omitted from filming/
II se peut que certaines pages blanches ajout^es
lors d'une restauration apparaissent dans le texte,
mais, lorsque cela 6tait possible, ces pages n'ont
pas 6t6 film^es.

Additional comments:/
Commentaires suppl^mentaires;

L'Institut a microfilm^ le meilleur exemplaire
qu'il lui a 6t6 possible de se procurer. Les details
de cet exemplaire qui sont peut-dtre uniques du
point de vue bibliographique, qui peuvent modifier
une image reproduite, ou qui peuvent exiger une
modification dans la mdthode normale de filmage
sont indiquds ci-dessous.

I I Coloured pages/

Pages de couleur

Pages damaged/
Pages endommag^es

I I Pages restored and/or laminated/

□

Pages restaur^es et/ou pellicul^es

Pages discoloured, stained or foxed/
Pages d6color6es, tachet^es ou piquees

'^ages detached/
Pages d^tach^es

Showthrough/
Transparence

Quality of prir

Quality in^gale de I'impression

Includes supplementary materii
Comprend du materiel supplementaire

I I Showthrough/

I I Quality of print varies/

I I Includes supplementary material/

Only edition available/
Seule Edition disponible

Pages wholly or partially obscured by errata
slips, tissues, etc., have been refilmed to
ensure the best possible image/
Les pages totalement ou partiellement
obscurcies par un feuillet d'errata, une pelure,
etc., ont 6t6 film^es d nouveau de facon d
obtenir la meilleure image possible.

This item is filmed at the reduction ratio checked below/

Ce document est filmd au taux de reduction indiqud ci-dessous.

10X

14X

18X

22X

26X

30X

v/,

12X 16X 20X

24X 28X 32X

The copy filmed here has been reproduced thanks
to the generosity of:

ails

tdifie:

une

nage

Library of the Public
Archives of Canada

The images appearing here are the best quality
possible considering the condition and legibility
of the original copy and in keeping with the
filming contract specifications.

Original copies in printed paper covers are filmed
beginning with the front cover and ending on
the last page with a printed or illustrated impres-
sion, or the back cover when appropriate. All
other original copies are filmed beginning on the
first page with a printed or illustrated impres-
sion, and ending on the last page with a printed
or illustrated impression.

The last recorded frame on each microfiche
shall contain the symbol — ^ (meaning "CON-
TINUED"), or the symbol V (meaning "END"),
whichever applies.

L'exemplaire film6 fut reproduit grdce d la
g6n6rosit6 de:

La bibliothSque des Archives
publiques du Canada

Les images suivantes ont 6t6 reproduites avec le
plus grand soin, compte tenu de la condition et
de la nettet6 de l'exemplaire film6, et en
conformity avec les conditions du contrat de
filmage.

Les exemplaires originaux dont la couverture en
papier est imprim6e sont filmds en commenpant
par le premier plat et en terminant soit par la
dernidre page qui comporte une empreinte
d'impression ou d'illustration, soit par le second
plat, selon le cas. Tous les autres exemplaires
originaux sont filmds en commengant par la
premidre page qui comporte une empreinte
d'impression ou d'illustration et en terminant par
la dernidre page qui comporte une telle
empreinte.

Un des symboles suivants apparaitra sur la
dernidre image de cheque microfiche, selon le
cas: le symbole '—*- signifie "A SUIVRE", le
symbole V signifie "FIN".

Maps, plates, charts, etc., may be filmed at
different reduction ratios. Those too large to be
entirely included in one exposure are filmed
beginning in the upper left hand corner, left to
right and top to bottom, as many frames as
required. The following diagrams illustrate the
method:

Les cartes, planches, tableaux, etc., peuvent etre
filmds d des taux de reduction diffdrents.
Lorsque le document est trop grand pour etre
reproduit en un seul clichd, il est filmd A partir
de Tangle supdrieur gauche, de gauche d droite,
et de haut en bas, en prenant le nombre
d'images ndcessaire. Les diagrammes suivants
illustrent la mdthode.

rrata
to

pelure,
n d

□

32X

ft'

Was America peopled from Polynesia?

A studv in coniDarative Philoloirv.

With Gompliments of

HORATIO HALE,

Cmni(.\, Ontauio,

Canada-

■-T~TX"

at Berlin, in October 1888.

-1l

,nists

Berlin 1890.

Printed by H. S. Hermann.

" i frTTVvg B nrgg- g r ja ir ^'"""-^n'C.

■ y

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.

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

„

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

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.

COXORKS HKS AMKKICAXISTKS.

A (.'ouipavativo list ot other comiiKni words in tlic two
laii<j;iiag't's was also <;iv('ii in tlir essay, to vciii+'orcc this evi-
dence: l)iit I presnine thr rcscinhlaiico shown in these pi-o-
nouiinal forms will be dei^nied to alTord ample proof of my
proposition. If a like similarity could he shown hotween the
pronouns of a Polynesian and an American language, no i)hilo-
logist, 1 feel sure, would d<iul)t that we were on tlit^ trace
of a most important linguistic connection hetween the tAvo
contijients.

Pursuing the inquiry tmder this point of view, 1 have
carefully compared the pronouns in all the languages of the
west coast of America. f»r which tht> 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

CINQUIKME SKSsloN ()|{|»1NAI i;i:. 9

similaritios to Polynesian forms cannot bo foinid. wliicli will
seem worthy of further investi<ration. Such exnniination as
I have been able to make shows, in fact, certain resemblances,
but they all belong to the class which philologists are un-
animous in ascribing not to direct genetic, connection, but to
that similar Avorking of the human faculties in widely distant
races which goes to prove the unity of the species. Among
these resembling forms may be mentioned the use of redu-
plication in expressing the plural number. In several of the
languages of Western America, particularly in those of the
Mexican (or Nahuatl-Sonoran) family and some of the tongues
of Oregon, the method of reduplication, usually of the first
syllable of a noun or an adjective, for indicating plurality, is
common. In the Nahuatl tongue, kalli, house, has for its
plural ka kalli, micqui, the dead, has mimicque, and so on.
In the Pima of Sonora, hota, stone, makes hohota: in the
Tarahumara, miiki, woman, makes mumuki. Further north-
ward, we have in the Kizh, a language of California, belonging
to the Shoshonian stock, kitsh, house, making its plural
kikitsh, and tshinui, small, making tshitshinui. In the
Sahaptin of Oregon, pitin. girl, makes pipitin; tahs, good,
titalis. The Malayo-Polynesian languages use leduplication
for various purposes, one of which is for indicating plurality.
But, rather singularly, this use in the proper Polynesian dialects
is restricted to the adjective, and is not applied to the noun.
Thus we find in the Samoan language, laau tele, large tree
(literally „tree large"), pi. laau tetele, large trees; in the
Tongan, tofoa lahi, great whale, tofoa lalahi, great whales;
in New-Zealand, ika pai, good fish, ika papai, good fishes;
in Paumotu, erire wiru, good woman, erire wiruwiru, good
women; in Tahitian, taata maitai, good man, taata maitatai,
good men.

If however, we are asked to suppose from this similarity
of form a kinship between the Polynesian and American
tongues, we shall be forced to extend the bounds of this kindred
very widely indeed. We shall have to include in it the lan-
guages of the Japanese, of the Bushmen of South Africa, of

CONOIIKS PKS AMKI.MC.WLSTKS.

the Chicasas in eastern America, and several others. But, in
fact, so natural is this method of expressing the phiral number
t^at onr onlj^ surprise is to find it not more common. The
Count de Charencey, in his treatise on the „Chichimecan fa-
mily", well observes on this point: ,,One cannot deny that this
procedure oii'ers the mind something verj'^ logical, very satis-
fying. This repetition of the first syllable of the word has
been, evidently, the result of the alteration of an older system,
which consisted in repeating the word itself to form the plural.
It is certainly more natural to resort to this method for indi-
cating numbei- than to employ it, as various Indo-European
and Uralian icK .us have done, to express the past tense of
the verb."'

Another apparent resemblance is seen in the double form
of the first person plural, which is found in the Polynesian
tongues and in several of the American languages. These
idioms make the well-known distinction between the „we"
which includes the person addressed and tlu^ ,.we" which
excludes him. Examples of these distinctive forms will
be found in the annexed lists. It is hardly necessary to repeat
that such a mere resemblance in form, where there is no
similarity of words, and where the distinction of meaning
indicated by the form is a natural one, likely to occur to the
first framers of any language, cannot be deemed to alFord any
proof of relationship. Here, also, our surprise is rather to find
this form of plural so rare, and that only two of the western
American tongues, the Tshinuk in the north and the Quichua
in the south, seem to possess it. Among the eastern American
idioms it is more common.

The result of our inquiry is to show that no traces of
affiliation between the languages of Anu'rica and those of
Polynesia have thus far been discovered. This, it may be
added, is only what might have been expected, and that for a
very plain reason. America was undoubtedly peopled long
before Polynesia. However much anj^ one msty be inclined
to question the claims of an immense antiquity which have
been made for the earliest population of the western continent,

■^

■

-^^n

►

•

CIXQUIKME SESSION- ORDINAIRE.

there can be no reasonable doubt that considerably more than
three thousand years have elapsed since it was first inhabited.
But late researches have shown that the peopling of the Poly-
nesian islands is a comparatively recent event. As is well
known, when these islands were first discovered by European
explorers, and the fact was disclosed that they were inhabited by a
homogeneous population, speaking dialects of one language, a
theory was proposed to account for this fact. It was suggested
that the islands were the remf.ins of a vast inhabited continent,
which in some past age of the world had ^nnk almost entirely
beneath the waters, leaving its scattered mountain-tops as the
refuges for the surviving remnants of its population. The later
investigations of geologists and ethnologists have disposed of
this theory. The clear traditions of the islanders, and the decisive
evidence of their language, show them to be emigrants who
have reached their present abodes from south-eastern Asia
in modern times. It is established by unquestionable proof
that the two westernmost clusters of Polynesia, the Samoan
or Navigator Islands and the Tongan or Friendly Islands, were
the mother-groups whence all the eastern and southern islands
from Hawaii in the north to New-Zealand in the south, and
the Paumotus, the Gambler group and Easter Island in the
far east, have been peopled. The natives of those mother-
groups (Samoa and Tonga) have themselves a tradition that
their first iuhabitants came from an island in the far west
called Burotu, which has been supposed, with much proba-
bility to be the island of Bouro in the East Indian Archipelago.
It is very unlikely, from all the circumstances, that the event
commemorated by this tradition can have occurred more
than three thousand years ago. But, however this may be, it
is reasonably certain that the easternmost (as well a.s the
northern) Polynesian groups have been peopled within the
Christian era, and some of them at very recent dates. For these
dates, and for the evidence by which they are established,
I must refer to the masterly work of M. de Quatrefages, „Le8
Polynesiens et leurs Migrations", and to the lucid summary of
our latest knowledge on the subject contained in the recent

C0NGR1<;=! PKS AMERICANISTES.

publication of the same distinguished author, ,,Hommos Fos-
siles et Homines Sauvages." It will be sufficient to say that the
earliest settlement in eastern Polynesia, next to that of Tahiti
(of which the date is uncertain;, appears to have been made
in the Marquesas (Nukuhiva), soii.ewhat less than two thousand
3^ears ago. The Sandwich Islands were peopled in the seventh
century after Christ, — Earotonga and the Gambler Islands (Man-
gareva) in the thirteen tli century, — New - Zealand in the
fifteenth centurj^ and the Austi'al Islands less than three hun-
dred years ago. In fact, the colonization of the Pacific is-
lands by the Poljniesian race was still going on in the time
of Cook, and is cA'en ye*" not completed. In the middle of the
present centur}^ the eight easternmost coral islands of the
Paumotu or Low Archipelago, which stretches from Tahiti to
the neighborhood of the Gambler group, had not yet been
joeopled. And it is well known that the mutineers of the
Bounty found the fertile and inviting island on which they
took refuge, and conferred celebrity, uninhabited.

There is a curious synchronism between the peopling of
these Pacific groups and that of some islands of the Atlantic.
The Sandwich Islands were settled only about two cen-
turies earlier than Iceland and the Faroe Islands: and the )
Gambler group and Earoronga were colonized some four
centuries later than these Atlantic islands. New Zealand re-
ceived its population shortly before Madeii-a and the Azores
were settled; and Rimatara and the other Austral Islands of
Polynesia were peopled shortly after that event. The great
wave of humanity, spreading eastward and westward from
some common centre, and arrested for a time on the farthest
coasts of Asia and Europe, seems to have passed those bounds
and reached the islands of the two dividing oceans at nearly
the same period.

It is of course not impossible, nor very improbable, that
after the eastern islands of Polynesia had thus been peopled,
canoes bearing natives of those islands may occasionally have
made their way to the west coast of America. But if the
occupants of those canoes found the coast on which thej'

CINQUIEME SESSION ORDIXAIRR.

landed already peopled, as must certainly have been the case,
they would (if not massacred on landing) have been speedily
absorbed in that earlier popnlation, leaving no impression that
con Id now be traced.

Our reply, therefore, to the question cited from the pro-
gramme must be that no grammatical affinities, indicating a
connection between the Polynesian idioms and those of western
America, have yet been discovered. It is proper to add that
a few isolated languages of the American coast fare known,
such as the Xinca of Guatemala, the Mangue of Nicaragua,
and the Guaymi of Panama, of Avhich the vocabularies that
we have do not comprise the pronouns. Of these languages
all that can be said is that the words which we possess in
them are totally unlike the corresponding Polynesian words.
On the whole, it may be affirmed, that so far as our present
knowledge extends, the theory which would trace the origin
of the population of America, or any portion of it, to the
Polynesian race, finds no countenance in the testimony of
language, and is made extremely improbable by the evidence
of the very recent appearance (if that race in the eastern
Pacific islands.

CONORES DKS AMKIMCANISTKS.

>■,

■— H

-u

r~i '^

F->

^ £

3.2

7t f-

t; rt

§ I

tJ3

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

0) 0)

iS -3

^^:5-^

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 </"• C ^ M -TS

z^ ^ .•C, '= « 3 0) ^ •- s -^ ;; ■;3 .-H +j

S "Z --i

ci -l^ ^ 2 = ^
«4 :3 - \- cc - ij m P

3 '5 c o

3^=i:saici3c;Srt

s = o c

•M -4^ WAJ «• — ■.* -^ '») "^ '" "^ _i_I>

-^ -= 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 ?»

-^^

§ 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 ."^ ^ <V /I, ci t> <» .'2 ."^ r1 rC « ^

a >

CINQUIEME SESSION ORDINAIKK,

oi
J-

OS £

>. OS

■■0 2

".;::; S c -

;o 2 s >-

cfi « •- 1^

-^ ^ w .X

1 ^

M >

« O

c« .;^

^ S aj -«

S 5^^

o b ii

r« S ej P s a S

ce .^ rt

v^ ::: VL/ ^ '^ ^S 5 O

c .

:0 ^

ci 5 o

o -a -t

..i* ._

>, ^ ^ tit,^

o ^

c - -4-1 J^ ,jr

>j c; a ^ ^

o '^

5 ^ C ■«

(S 2 a N

S C S S S •::; -Hi 0} rC -r ??

gSSS3'S^:g^^

9. ■^. U' %

-o -i ^

cU X

4i^

— . ^

2 5 2 T '£ «* •-■■ ^ «s =< o o o

0/ '= S 1^

c x: „, -3 ^ ^- _

^i:

rt 2 *- ""^

a oj a, ^

rt ^ ^ ic

^.^

—

c •'= ^ £

o cj iC _rt

>>'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'

M)-c
a &H

5P o

f^ o
•4-1

"^ a;

X •-

0) <t

4) -1-

X «£

■*■'

C X

cj -r

a c
0:

-H

1-^

-(-

a
o

5s-

X — < •— ■:=
— ' X :t> ^
X a J ,•

;^ a —

"^ .S X

- ij s a

^ W &:h 5

^HH