Page:EB1911 - Volume 14.djvu/484

Stock.	Area.	Earliest Home.	Tribes, &c.	Population.
46. Wakashan (Kwakiutl-Nootka).	Most of Vancouver Island (except some 2/3 of the E. coast) and most of the coast of British Columbia from Gardner channel to Cape Mudge; also part of extreme N.W. Washington.	Somewhere in the interior of British Columbia.	3 main divisions, with more than 50 “tribes.”	4765, of which 435 are in the United States.
47. Washoan.	In E. central California and the adjoining part of Nevada, in the region of Lake Tahoe and the lower Carson valley.	In N.W. Nevada.	2.	About 200, in the region of Carson, Reno, &c.
48. Weitspekan (Yurok).	In N.W. California, W. of the Quoratean.	In N. California or S. Oregon.	6 divisions; no true tribes.	A few hundreds; in 1870 estimated at 2000 or more.
49. Wishoskan (Wiyot).	In N.W. California, in the coast region, S. of the Weitspekan.	In N. California.	3-5 divisions; no true tribes.	Nearly extinct.
50. Yakonan.	In W. Oregon, in the coast region and on the rivers from the Yaquina to the Umpqua.	W. central Oregon.	4 chief divisions, with numerous villages.	About 300, on the Siletz Reservation.
51. Yanan.	In central N. California in the region of Round Mountain, &c., S. of the Shastan.	Somewhere farther E.	1.	Practically extinct; in 1884 but 35 individuals living.
52. Yuchian.	In E. Georgia, on the Savannah river from above Augusta down to the Ogeechee, and also on Chatahoochee river; remnants now in Oklahoma.	Somewhere E. of the Chatahoochee.	1.	About 500, with Creeks in Oklahoma.
53. Yukian.	In N.W. California, E. of the Copehan, with a N. and a S. section; in the Round Valley region.	N. or central California.	5 divisions; no true tribes.	About 250.
54. Yuman.	In the extreme S.W. of the United States (lower Colorado and Gila valley), part of California, most of Lower California, and a small part of Mexico.	N.W. Arizona.	9-10.	In the United States about 4800.
55. Zuñian.	In N.W. New Mexico, on the Zuñi river.	Some part of the New Mexico-Arizona region.	1.	1500.

Of these 55 different linguistic stocks 5 (Arawakan, Beothukan, Esselenian, Karankawan and Timuquan) are completely extinct, the Arawakan, of course, in North America only; 13 (Atakapan, Chimarikan, Chitimachan, Chumashan, Costanoan, Kusan, Pakawan, Salinan, Takelman, Tonikan, Tonkawan, Wishoskan, Yakonan) practically extinct; while the speakers of a few other languages or the survivors of the people once speaking them (e.g. Chemakuan, Chinookan, Copehan, Kalapuyan, Mariposan, Washoan, Yukian), number about 200 or 300, in some cases fewer. Of the Wailatpuans, although some individuals belonging to the stock are still living, the language itself is practically extinct. The distribution of the various stocks reveals some interesting facts. Among these are the stretch of the Eskimoan along the whole Arctic coast and its extension into Asia; the immense areas occupied by the Athabaskan and the Algonkian, and (less notably) the Shoshonian and the Siouan; the existence of few stocks on the Atlantic slope (from Labrador to Florida, east of the Mississippi, only 8 are represented); the great multiplicity of stocks in the Pacific coast region, particularly in Oregon and California; the extension of the Shoshonian, Yuman and Athabaskan southward into Mexico, the Shoshonian in ancient, the Athabaskan in modern times; the existence of an Arawakan colony in south-western Florida, a 16th-century representative in North America of a South American linguistic stock. Some stocks, e.g. Atakapan, Beothukan, Chemakuan, Chimarikan, Chitimachan, Kiowan, Kitunahan, Lutuamian, Takelman, Tonkawan, Wailatpuan, Yanan, Yuchian, Zuñi, &c., were not split up into innumerable dialects, possessing at most but two, three or four, usually fewer. Of the larger stocks, the Athabaskan, Algonkian, Shoshonian, Siouan, Iroquoian, Salishan, &c., possess many dialects often mutually unintelligible. In marked contrast with this is the case of the Eskimoan stock, where, in spite of the great distance over which it has extended, dialect variations are at a minimum, and the people “have retained their language in all its minor features for centuries” (Boas). As to the reason for the abundance of linguistic stocks in the region of the Pacific (from Alaska to Lower California, west of long. 115°, there are 37: Eskimoan, Koluschan, Athabaskan, Haidan, Tsimshian, Wakashan, Salishan, Kitunahan, Chimakuan, Chinookan, Sahaptian, Wailatpuan, Shoshonian, Kalapuyan, Yakonan, Kusan, Takelman, Lutuamian, Quoratean, Weitspekan, Wishoskan, Shastan, Yanan, Chimarikan, Yukian, Copehan, Pujunan, Washoan, Kulanapan, Moquelumnan, Mariposan, Costanoan, Esselenian, Salinan, Chumashan, Yuman) there has been much discussion. Of these no fewer than 18 are confined practically to the limits of the present state of California. Dialects of Athabaskan, Shoshonian and Yuman also occur within the Californian areas, thus making, in all, representatives of 21 linguistic stocks in a portion of the continent measuring less than 156,000 sq. m. In explanation of this great diversity of speech several theories have been put forward. One is to the effect that here, as in the region of the Caucasus in the Old World, the multiplicity of languages is due to the fact that tribe after tribe has been driven into the mountain valleys, &c., by the pressure of stronger and more aggressive peoples, who were setting forth on careers of migration and conquest. Another view, advocated by Horatio Hale in 1886 (Proc. Amer. Assoc. Adv. Sci.; also Proc. Canad. Inst., Toronto, 1888), is that this great diversity of human speech is due to the language-making instinct of children, being the result of “its exercise by young children accidentally isolated from the teachings and influence of grown companions.” A pair of young human beings, separating thus from the parent tribe and starting social life in a new environment by themselves, would, according to Mr Hale, soon produce a new dialect or a new language. This theory was looked upon with favour by Romanes, Brinton, and other psychologists and ethnologists. Dr R. B. Dixon (Congr. intern. des. Amér., Quebec, 1906, pp. 255-263), discussing some aspects of this question, concludes “that the great linguistic and considerable cultural complexity of this whole California-Oregon region is due to progressive differentiation rather than to the crowding into this restricted area of remnants of originally discrete stocks.” How far two dialects of one stock can go in the way of such differentiation without becoming absolutely distinct is illustrated by the Achomawi branches of the Shastan family of speech, which Dr Dixon has very carefully investigated.

The test of vocabulary is not the only means by which the languages of the North American aborigines might be classified. There are peculiarities of phonetics, morphology, grammar, sentence-structure, &c., which suggest groupings of the linguistic stocks independent of their lexical content. Some languages are harsh and consonantal (e.g. the Kootenay and others of the North Pacific region), some melodious and vocalic, as are certain of the tongues of California and the south-eastern United States. Some employ reduplication with great frequency, like certain Shoshonian dialects; others, like Kootenay, but rarely. A few, like the Chinook, are exceedingly onomatopoeic. Some, like the northern languages of California, have no proper plural forms. Of the Californian languages the Pomo alone distinguishes gender in the pronoun, a feature common to other languages no farther off than Oregon. The high development and syntactical use of demonstratives which characterize the Kwakiutl are not found among the Californian tongues. A few languages, like the Chinook and the Tonika, possess real grammatical gender. Some languages are essentially prefix, others essentially suffix tongues; while yet others possess both prefixes and suffixes, or even infixes as well. In some languages vocalic changes, in others consonantal, have grammatical or semantic meaning. In certain languages tense, mood and voice are rather