The nationality of the Pueblos. In the Rocky Mountain Presbyterian.

Denver, November, 1878.

This is a half-column article, the object of which is to a.s.sign the several Pueblos to their proper stocks. A paragraph is devoted to contradicting the popular belief that the Pueblos are in some way related to the Aztecs. No vocabularies are given or cited, though the cla.s.sification is stated to be a linguistic one.

1878. Keane (Augustus H).

Appendix. Ethnography and philology of America. In Stanford's Compendium of Geography and Travel, edited and extended by H. W.

Bates. London, 1878.

In the appendix are given, first, some of the more general characteristics and peculiarities of Indian languages, followed by a cla.s.sification of all the tribes of North America, after which is given an alphabetical list of American tribes and languages, with their habitats and the stock to which they belong.

The cla.s.sification is compiled from many sources, and although it contains many errors and inconsistencies, it affords on the whole a good general idea of prevalent views on the subject.

1880. Powell (John Wesley).

Pueblo Indians. In the American Naturalist. Philadelphia, 1880, vol. 14.

This is a two-page article in which is set forth a cla.s.sification of the Pueblo Indians from linguistic considerations. The Pueblos are divided into four families or stocks, viz:

1. Shinumo.

2. Zunian.

3. Keran.

4. Tewan.

Under the several stocks is given a list of those who have collected vocabularies of these languages and a reference to their publication.

1880. Eells (Myron).

The Twana language of Washington Territory. In the American Antiquarian. Chicago, 1880-'81, vol. 3.

This is a brief article--two and a half pages--on the Twana, Clallam, and Chemak.u.m Indians. The author finds, upon a comparison of vocabularies, that the Chemak.u.m language has little in common with its neighbors.

1885. Dall (William Healey).

The native tribes of Alaska. In Proceedings of the American a.s.sociation for the Advancement of Science, thirty-fourth meeting, held at Ann Arbor, Mich., August, 1885. Salem, 1886.

This paper is a timely contribution to the subject of the Alaska tribes, and carries it from the point at which the author left it in 1869 to date, briefly summarizing the several recent additions to knowledge. It ends with a geographical cla.s.sification of the Innuit and Indian tribes of Alaska, with estimates of their numbers.

1885. Bancroft (Hubert Howe).

The works of Hubert Howe Bancroft, vol. 3: the native races, vol. 3, myths and languages. San Francisco, 1882.

[Transcriber's Note: Vols. 1-5 collectively are "The Native Races"; vol. 3 is _Myths and Languages_.]

In the chapter on that subject the languages are cla.s.sified by divisions which appear to correspond to groups, families, tribes, and dialects.

The cla.s.sification does not, however, follow any consistent plan, and is in parts unintelligible.

1882. Gatschet (Albert Samuel).

Indian languages of the Pacific States and Territories and of the Pueblos of New Mexico. In the Magazine of American History. New York, 1882, vol. 8.

This paper is in the nature of a supplement to a previous one in the same magazine above referred to. It enlarges further on several of the stocks there considered, and, as the t.i.tle indicates, treats also of the Pueblo languages. The families mentioned are:

1. Chimariko.

2. Washo.

3. Yakona.

4. Sayuskla.

5. Kusa.

6. Takilma.

7. Rio Grande Pueblo.

8. Kera.

9. Zuni.

1883. Hale (Horatio).

Indian migrations, as evidenced by language. In The American Antiquarian and Oriental Journal. Chicago, 1888, vol. 5.

In connection with the object of this paper--the study of Indian migrations--several linguistic stocks are mentioned, and the linguistic affinities of a number of tribes are given. The stocks mentioned are:

Huron-Cherokee.

Dakota.

Algonkin.

Chahta-Muskoki.

1885. Tolmie (W. Fraser) and Dawson (George M.)

Comparative vocabularies of the Indian tribes of British Columbia, with a map ill.u.s.trating distribution (Geological and Natural History Survey of Canada). Montreal, 1884.

The vocabularies presented const.i.tute an important contribution to linguistic science. They represent "one or more dialects of every Indian language spoken on the Pacific slope from the Columbia River north to the Tshilkat River, and beyond, in Alaska; and from the outermost sea-board to the main continental divide in the Rocky Mountains."

A colored map shows the area occupied by each linguistic family.

LINGUISTIC MAP.

In 1836 Gallatin conferred a great boon upon linguistic students by cla.s.sifying all the existing material relating to this subject. Even in the light of the knowledge of the present day his work is found to rest upon a sound basis. The material of Gallatin's time, however, was too scanty to permit of more than an outline of the subject. Later writers have contributed to the work, and the names of Latham, Turner, Prichard, Buschmann, Hale, Gatschet, and others are connected with important cla.s.sificatory results.

The writer's interest in linguistic work and the inception of a plan for a linguistic cla.s.sification of Indian languages date back about 20 years, to a time when he was engaged in explorations in the West. Being brought into contact with many tribes, it was possible to collect a large amount of original material. Subsequently, when the Bureau of Ethnology was organized, this store was largely increased through the labors of others. Since then a very large body of literature published in Indian languages has been acc.u.mulated, and a great number of vocabularies have been gathered by the Bureau a.s.sistants and by collaborators in various parts of the country. The results of a study of all this material, and of much historical data, which necessarily enters largely into work of this character, appear in the accompanying map.

The contributions to the subject during the last fifty years have been so important, and the additions to the material accessible to the student of Gallatin's time have been so large, that much of the reproach which deservedly attached to American scholars because of the neglect of American linguistics has been removed. The field is a vast one, however, and the workers are comparatively few. Moreover, opportunities for collecting linguistic material are growing fewer day by day, as tribes are consolidated upon reservations, as they become civilized, and as the older Indians, who alone are skilled in their language, die, leaving, it may be, only a few imperfect vocabularies as a basis for future study.

History has bequeathed to us the names of many tribes, which became extinct in early colonial times, of whose language not a hint is left and whose linguistic relations must ever remain unknown.

It is vain to grieve over neglected opportunities unless their contemplation stimulates us to utilize those at hand. There are yet many gaps to be filled, even in so elementary a part of the study as the cla.s.sification of the tribes by language. As to the detailed study of the different linguistic families, the mastery and a.n.a.lysis of the languages composing them, and their comparison with one another and with the languages of other families, only a beginning has been made.