Man, Past and Present by Agustus Henry Keane, A. Hingston Quiggin, Alfred Court Haddon (free reads .TXT) 📕

The Athapascans alone are homogeneous, and their sub-brachycephaly recurs amongst the Apaches and their other southern kindred, who have given it an exaggerated form by the widespread practice of artificial deformation, which dates from remote times. The most typical cases both of brachy and dolicho deformation are from the Cerro de las Palmas graves in south-west Mexico. Deformation prevails also in Peru and Bolivia, as well as in Ceara and the Rio Negro on the Atlantic side. The flat-head form, so common from the Columbia estuary to Peru, occurs amongst the broad-faced Huaxtecs, their near relations the Maya-Quiches, and the Nahuatlans. It is also found amongst the extinct Cebunys of Cuba, Hayti and Jamaica, and the so-called "Toltecs," that is, the people of Tollan (Tula), who first founded a civilised state on the Mexican table-land (sixth and seventh centuries A.D.), and whose name afterwards became associated with every ancient monument throughout Central America. On this "Toltec question" the most contradictory theories are current; some hold that the Toltecs were a great and powerful nation, who after the overthrow of their empire migrated southwards, spreading their culture throughout Central America; others regard them as "fabulous," or at all events "nothing more than a sept of the Nahuas themselves, the ancestors of those Mexicans who built Tenochtitlan," i.e. the present city of Mexico. A third view, that of Valentini, that the Toltecs were not Nahuas but Mayas, is now supported both by E. P. Dieseldorff[753] and by Foerstemann[754]. T. A. Joyce[755] suggests that the vanguard of the Nahuas on reaching the Mexican valley adopted and improved the culture of an agricultural people of Tarascan affinities whose culture was in part due to Mayan inspiration, whom they found settled there. Later migrations of Nahua were greatly impressed with the "Toltec" culture which had thus arisen through the impact of a virile hunting people on more passive agriculturalists.

On the North-west Pacific Coast similar ethnical interminglings recur, and Franz Boas[756] here distinguishes as many as four types, the Northern (Tsimshian and others), the Kwakiutl, the Lillooet of the Harrison Lake region and the inland Salishan (Flat-heads, Shuswaps, etc.). All are brachycephalic, but while the Tsimshians are of medium height 1.675 m. (5 ft. 6 in.) with low, concave nose, very large head, and enormously broad face, exceeding the average for North America by 6 mm., the Kwakiutls are shorter 1.645 m. (5 ft. 4-3/4 in.) with very high and relatively narrow hooked nose, and quite exceptionally high face; the Harrison Lake very short 1.600 m. (5 ft 3 in.) with exceedingly short and broad head (C. I. nearly 89), "surpassing in this respect all other forms known to exist in North America"; lastly, the inland Salish of medium height 1.679 m. (5 ft. 6 in.) with high and wide nose of the characteristic Indian form and a short head.

It would be difficult to find anywhere a greater contrast than that which is presented by some of these British Columbian natives, those, for instance, of Harrison Lake with almost circular heads (88.8), and some of the Labrador Eskimo with a degree of dolichocephaly not exceeded even by the Fijian Kai-Colos (65)[757]. But this violent contrast is somewhat toned by the intermediate forms, such as those of the Tlingits, the Aleutian islanders, and the western (Alaskan) Eskimo, by which the transition is effected between the Arctic and the more southern populations. It is not possible at present to indicate even in outline the chronology of any of the ethnic movements outlined above. Warren K. Moorehead[758] agrees with the great majority of American archaeologists in holding the existence of palaeolithic man in North America as not proven[759], the so-called palaeoliths being either rejects or rude tools for rough purposes. When man migrated to America from North and East Asia whenever that period may have been, he appears to have been in that stage of culture--or rather of stone technique--which we term Neolithic, and the drifting movement ceased before he had learnt the use of metals.

A further proof of the antiquity of the migrations is afforded by linguistics. A. F. Chamberlain asserts[760] that "it may be said with certainty, so far as all data hitherto presented are concerned, that no satisfactory proof whatever has been put forward to induce us to believe that any single American Indian tongue or group of tongues has been derived from any Old World form of speech now existing or known to have existed in the past. In whatever way the multiplicity of American Indian languages and dialects may have arisen, one can be reasonably sure that the differentiation and divergence have developed here in America and are in no sense due to the occasional intrusion of Old World tongues individually or en masse.... Certain real relationships between the American Indians and the peoples of north-eastern Asia, known as 'Paleo-Asiatics,' have, however, been revealed as a result of the extensive investigations of the Jesup North Pacific Expedition.... The general conclusion to be drawn from the evidence is that the so-called 'Paleo-Asiatic' peoples of north-eastern Asia, i.e. the Chukchee, Koryak, Kamchadale, Gilyak, Yukaghir, etc. really belong physically and culturally with the aborigines of north-western America.... Like the modern Asiatic Eskimo they represent a reflex from America and Asia, and not vice versa.... It is the opinion of good authorities also that the 'Paleo-Asiatic' peoples belong linguistically with the American Indians rather than with the other tribes and stocks of northern or southern Asia. Here we have then the only real relationship of a linguistic character that has ever been convincingly argued between tongues of the New World and tongues of the Old."

It is not merely that the American languages differ from other forms of speech in their general phonetic, structural and lexical features; they differ from them in their very morphology, as much, for instance, as in the zoological world class differs from class, order from order. They have all of them developed on the same polysynthetic lines, from which if a few here and there now appear to depart, it is only because in the course of their further evolution they have, so to say, broken away from that prototype[761]. Take the rudest or the most highly cultivated anywhere from Alaska to Fuegia--Eskimauan, Iroquoian, Algonquian, Aztec, Tarascan, Ipurina, Peruvian, Yahgan--and you will find each and all giving abundant evidence of this universal polysynthetic character, not one true instance of which can be found anywhere in the eastern hemisphere. There is incorporation with the verb, as in Basque, many of the Caucasus tongues, and the Ural-Altaic group; but it is everywhere limited to pronominal and purely relational elements.

But in the American order of speech there is no such limitation, and not merely the pronouns, which are restricted in number, but the nouns with their attributes, which are practically numberless, all enter necessarily into the verbal paradigm. Thus in Tarascan (Mexico): hopocuni = to wash the hands; hopodini = to wash the ears, from hoponi = to wash, which cannot be used alone[762]. So in Ipurina (Amazonia): nicucacatcaurumatinii = I draw the cord tight round your waist, from ni, I; cucaca, to draw tight; tca, cord; turuma, waist; tini, characteristic verbal affix; i, thy, referring to waist[763].

We see from such examples that polysynthesis is not a primitive condition of speech, as is often asserted, but on the contrary a highly developed system, in which the original agglutinative process has gone so far as to attract all the elements of the sentence to the verb, round which they cluster like swarming bees round their queen. In Eskimauan the tendency is shown in the construction of nouns and verbs, by which other classes of words are made almost unnecessary, and one word, sometimes of interminable length, is able to express a whole sentence with its subordinate clauses. H. Rink, one of the first Eskimo scholars of modern times, gives the instance: "Suerukame-autdlasassoq-tusaramiuk-tuningingmago-iluarin-gilat = they did not approve that he (a) had omitted to give him (b) something, as he (a) heard that he (b) was going to depart on account of being destitute of everything[764]." Such monstrosities "are so complicated that in daily speech they could hardly ever occur; but still they are correct and can be understood by intelligent people[765]."

He gives another and much longer example, which the reader may be spared, adding that there are altogether about 200 particles, as many as ten of which may be piled up on any given stem. The process also often involves great phonetic changes, by which the original form of the elements becomes disguised, as, for instance, in the English hap'oth = half-penny-worth. The attempt to determine the number of words that might be formed in this way on a single stem, such as igdlo, a house, had to be given up after getting as far as the compound igdlorssualiortugssarsiumavoq = he wants to find one who will build a large house.

It is clear that such a linguistic evolution implies both the postulated isolation from other influences, which must have disturbed and broken up the cumbrous process, and also the postulated long period of time to develop and consolidate the system throughout the New World. But time is still more imperiously demanded by the vast number of stock languages, many already extinct, many still current all over the continent, all of which differ profoundly in their vocabulary, often also in their phonesis, and in fact have nothing in common except this extraordinary polysynthetic groove in which they are cast. There are probably about 75 stock languages in North America, of which 58 occur north of Mexico.

But even that conveys but a faint idea of the astonishing diversity of speech prevailing in this truly linguistic Babel. J. W. Powell[766] points out that the practically distinct idioms are far more numerous than might be inferred even from such a large number of mother tongues. Thus, in the Algonquian[767] linguistic family he tells us there are about 40, no one of which could be understood by a people speaking another; in Athapascan from 30 to 40; in Siouan over 20; and in Shoshonian a still greater number[768]. The greatest linguistic diversity in a relatively small area is found in the state of California, where, according to Powell's classification, 22 distinct stocks of languages are spoken. R. B. Dixon and A. L. Kroeber[769] show however that these fall into three morphological groups which are also characterised by certain cultural features. It is the same, or perhaps even worse, in Central and in South America, where the linguistic confusion is so great that no complete classification of the native tongues seems possible. Clements R. Markham in the third edition of his exhaustive list of the Amazonian tribes[770] has no less than 1087 entries. He concludes that these may be referred to 485 distinct tribes in all the periods, since the days of Acuna (1639). Deducting some 111 as extinct or nearly so, the total amounts to "323 at the outside" (p. 135). But for such linguistic differences, large numbers of these groups would be quite indistinguishable from each other, so great is the prevailing similarity in physical appearance and usages in many districts. Thus Ehrenreich tells us that, "despite their ethnico-linguistic differences, the tribes about the head-waters of the Xingu present complete uniformity in their daily habits, in the conditions of their existence, and their general culture[771]," though it is curious to note that the art of making pottery is restricted here to the Arawak tribes[772]. Yet amongst them are represented three of the radically distinct linguistic groups of Brazil, some (Bakairi and Nahuqua) belonging to the Carib, some (Auetoe and Kamayura) to the Tupi-Guarani, and some (Mehinaku and Vaura) to the Arawak family. Obviously these could not be so discriminated but for their linguistic differences. On the other hand the opposite phenomenon is occasionally presented of tribes differing considerably in their social