SERIAN, TEQUISTLATECAN, AND HOKAN

UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA PUBLICATIONSIN

AMERICAN ARCHAEOLOGY AND ETHNOLOGY

Vol. 1 1, No. 4, pp. 279-290 February 10, 1915

SERIAN, TEQUISTLATECAN, AND HOKAN

BY

A. L. KROEBER

UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA PRESSBERKELEY

UNIVERSITY OF COALIQRNIA PUBIICATIONSDEPARTMENT OF ANITROPOLOGY

The following publications dealing with archaeological and ethnological subjects issuedmder the direction of the Department of Anthropology are sent In exchange for the publi-cations of anthropological departments and museums, and for journals devoted to generalanthropology or to archaeology and ethnology., They are for sale at the prices stated, whichinclude postage or express charges. Exchanges should be directed to The Exchange Depart-ment, University Library, Berkeley, California, U, S. A. All orders and remittances shouldbe addressed to the University Press.

European agent for the series in American Archaeology and Ethnology, Classical Phil-ology, Education, MDodern Philology, Philosophy, and Semitic Philology, Otto Harrassowits,Leipzig. For the series in Botany, Geology, Pathology, Physiology, Zoology and also Amer-ican Archaeology and Ethnology, B. Friedlaender & Sohn, BerlinAMERICAN ARCHAEOLOGY AND ETHNOLOGY.-A. L. Kroeber, Editor. Price per

volume $3.50 (Vol. 1, $4.25).Cited as Univ. Calif. Publ. Am. Arch. Ethn. Price

Vol. 1. 1. Life iand Culture of the Hupa, by Pliny Earle Goddard. Pp. 1-88;plates 1-30. September, 1903 ........................ $1.25

2. Hupa Texts, by Pliny Earle Goddard. Pp. 89-368. March, 1904 ......... 3.00Index, pp. 369-378.

Vol. 2. 1. The Exploration of the Potter Creek Cave, by William J. Sinclair.Pp. 1-27; plates 1-14. April, 1904........................... .- .40

2. The Languages of the Coast of California South of San Francisco, byA. L. Kroeber. Pp. 29-80, with a map. June, 1904 ............. ................. .60

3. Types of Indian Culture in California, by A. L. Kroeber. Pp. 81-103.June, 1904 .............................................................. .25

4. Basket Designs of the Indians of Northwestern California, by A. L.Kroeber. Pp. 105-164; plates 15-21. January, 1905 .--..- - .75

5. The Yokuts Language of South Central California, by A. L. Kroeber.Pp.165-377.January, 1907 -............................................... 2.25

Index, pp. 379-392.Vol. 3. The Morphology of the Hupa Language, by Pliny Earle Goddard.

344pp. June, 1905 ................ ......L.......... 3.50Vol. 4. 1. The Earliest Historical Relations between Mexico and Japan, from

original documents preserved in Spain and Japan, by Zelia Nuttall.Pp. 1-47. April, 1906 ................ .. .50

2. Contribution to the Physical Anthropology of California, based on col-lections in the Department of Anthropology of the University ofCalifornia, and in the U. S. National Museums by Ales Erdlicka.Pp. 49-64, with 5 tables; plates 1-10, and map. June, 1906 ......... -... .75

3. The Shoshonean Dialects of California, by A. L. Kroeber. Pp. 65-166.Pebruary, 1907 1.50

4. Indian Myths from South Central California, by A. L. Eroeber. Pp.167-250. May, 1907 . ...... .75

5. The Washo Language of East Central California and Nevada, by A. L.Eroeber. Pp. 251-318. September, 1907 .75

6. The Religion of the Indians of California, by A. L. Kroeber. Pp. 319-356. September, 1907 ....... .50

IndeZ, pp. 357-374.Vol. 5. 1. The Phonology of the Hupa Language; Part I, The Individual Sounds,

by Pliny Earle Goddard. Pp. 1-20, plates 1-8. March, 1907. . 352. Navaho Myths, Prayers and Songs, with Texts and Translations, by

Washington Matthews, edited by Pliny Earle Goddard. Pp. 21-63.September, 1907 ...........- _._. .75

3. Kato Texts, by Pliny Earle Goddard. Pp. 65-238, plate 9. December,1909 -2.50

4. The Material Culture of the Elamath Lake and Modoc Indians ofNortheastern California and Southern Oregon, by S.- A. Barrett.Pp. 239-292, plates 10-25. June, 1910 ............................... - .75

5. The Chimariko Indians and Language, by Roland B. Dixon. Pp. 293-380. August, 1910 1.00

Index, pp. 381-384.Vol. 6. 1. The Ethno-Geography of the Pomo and Neighboring Indians, by.Sam-

uel Alfred Barrett. Pp. 1-332, maps 1-2. February, 1908 3.252. The Geography and Dialects of the Miwok Indian, by Samuel Alfred

Barrett. Pp. 333-68, map 3.3. On the Evidence of the Occupation of Certain Regions by the Miwok

Indians, by A. L. Kroeber. Pp. 369-380. Nos. 2 and 3 in oae cover.February, 1908 .........................-................................................. ....50

Index, pp. 381-400.

UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA PUBLICATIONSIN

AMERICAN ARCHAEOLOGY AND ETHNOLOGY

Vol. 1 1, No. 4, pp. 279-290 February 10, 1915

SERIAN, TEQUISTLATECAN, AND HOKAN

BY

A. L. KROEBER

Daniel Garrison Brinton many years ago affirmed a geneticconnection between the Seri" language of Sonora, the Chontalor Tequistlatecan2 idiom of Oaxaca, and the Yuman group ofdialects, which Dr. R. B. Dixon and I recently united with sixother Californian languages into the new Hokan family.3 Assum-ing the validity of Hokan as a single group, Seri and Chontalwould therefore be members of it if Brinton's assertion of theirrelationship with Yuman is true. As his contentions have notbeen generally accepted, the present essay is a re-examinationof the evidence.

Brinton's union of Tequistlatecan and Yuman has hardlyelicited a reaction. It must be admitted that the twenty-threeChontal words available to him were not enough for very con-vincing effect. The unsatisfactory quality of his word parallelswas also in part due to the poor material accessible to him fromthe Yuman group of dialects. The enormous geographical dis-tance between the two languages was a further obstacle to accept-ance of his findings. The Yuman idioms do not reach farthereast than longitude 1120 nor farther south than latitude 311/2½in Sonora or 260 in the peninsula of Lower California. Tequist-latecan is spoken on the Pacific Coast in the vicinity of longitude960 and latitude 160, near the isthmus of Tehuantepec. Brin-ton's remarks have therefore been iguored by nearly all of his

1 The American Race (1901), 110, 113, 335.2 Ibid., 112,148.3Science, n. s., xxxvii, 225, 1913; American Anthropologist, n. 8., xv,

647-655, 1913.

280 University of California Publications in Am. Arch. and Ethn. [Vol. 11

colleagues and successors. Thomas and Swanton in their mapof linguistic stocks of Mexico4 retain Chontal as an independentfamily under Brinton's provisional name Tequistlatecan.

Seri has provoked one discussion. In a linguistic appendixto the late W J McGee's famous monograph on the Seri, Mr.J. N. B. Hewitt has compared in detail a considerable number ofSeri and Yuman stems, with consistently negative findings as tooriginal similarity. A careful examination of this report at thetime of its publication, however, left me with a strong beliefthat genetic relationship existed. Several American anthropol-ogists have expressed to me the same conviction. Mr. Hewitt'sconclusion seemed not unnatural in view of his affectionatefriendship with Dr. McGee, who was strongly attached to theimpression that the Seri were in every respect a thoroughlyunique and isolated people; and also because Mr. Hewitt andDr. Brinton were scientific antagonists in other fields. Theseearly misgivings as to the distinctness of Seri and Yuman werefortified by the change of point of view which I underwent inthe course of my recent collaboration with Dr. Dixon, whichresulted in the unexpected union of Yuman with so many otherlanguages. The geographical barrier is also wanting for theSeri. Their habitat, between parallels 280 and 300 and longitude1110 and the Gulf of California, is almost in contact with theterritory of the Cocopa and directly across the narrow straitfrom the Cochimi, both admitted Yuman tribes.

For Tequistlatecan there is available Francisco Belmar'sEstudio de El Chontal (Oaxaca, 1900). For Seri there is, be-sides the various vocabularies drawn on and cited by Mr. Hewitt,a compilation by F. Hernandez in his Guerra del Yaqui. Thesetwo works together provide vocabularies by or from McGee,Pinart, Loustanou, Peinafiel, Tenochio, and Bartlett. The soundsof Seri evidently gave the European ears of these hearers muchtrouble. A process of averaging, however, allows a probably fairreconstruction of the spoken sounds. These have been expressedin an orthography used in my rendition of the Yuman Mohavedialect. In essentials this is the alphabet used by professionalAmerican ethnologists. Certain details are explained below.

4 Indian Languages of Mexico and Central America, Bureau of Ameri-can Ethnology, Bulletin 44, 1911.

Kroeber: Serian, Tequi,stlatecan, and Hokcan

Fortunately both Spanish and English spellings were employedby the six recorders of Seri, and they included native Frenchmen.The averages struck from their variant forms are therefore nearerthe truth than if all six had been of one nationality. To rep-resent the Yuman group of languages, Mohave was chosen be-cause of personal familiarity.5 I have not heard other Yumanidioms except Dieguen'o, and not much of that. The attemptto combine the rendition by other workers of other Yuman dia-lects with the author's spelling of Mohave would have beendifficult, and left many doubtful points. For that matter, justbecause Mohave is one dialect of many, and apparently a some-what specialized one, any similarity between it and Chontal orSeri that may be accepted as established will only be reinforcedwhen satisfactory comparisons with the entire Yuman groupare instituted. Senfor Belmar's orthography has been somewhataltered, but not materially, to conform to that used for Seri andMohave. The comparative table of words from the three lan-guages has been enlarged by selections of parallel forms fromthe Hokan languages of California other than Yuman: Esselen,Pomo, Yana, Shastan, Chimariko, and Karok.6

In detail the orthography needs little elucidation. FollowingAmerican usage, c stands for sounds of the sh-type; tc there-fore equals English ch; x is a surd palatal fricative, L a surd1; and 6 and 8 are surd and sonant interdental fricativesderived in Mohave from original s and y. Chontal ng and gh,and Seri gh, are as written in the original sources. Mohave lyand ny are simple sounds, palatalized; and kw and xw inall the languages referred to are probably simple labializationsof palatals. The apostrophe indicates the glottal stop, exceptafter stopped consonants, of which it denotes the glottalization.Mohave v is bilabial: the same quality appears to attach to fand v in the other Californian Hokan languages, and may belooked for in Seri and Chontal.

5 Present series, x, 45-96, 1911.6 For Esselen, see present series, II, 29-80, 1904; for Pomo, S. A. Bar-

rett, ibid., vi, 1-332, 1908; for Chimariko, R. B. Dixon, ibid., v, 293-380,1910. The Shastan material is Dr. Dixon's; it covers Shasta, Achomawi,Atsugewi, and minor dialects. Yana and Karok are mainly from manu-script notes by myself; there is published material on these languages inthe present series, ix2, 1-235, 1910 (by Dr. E. Sapir), and Ix, 273-435, 1911.

1915], 281

282 Univer8ity of California Publications in Am. Arch. and Ethn. [Vol. 11

Even without discussion, this comparative table may be ad-mitted to make the case for the relationship of Chontal and Serito Hokan at least plausible. It is hoped that the following soundequivalences, many of which occur repeatedly, will convince eventhe skeptical. To save space and detail, the words adduced arenot written out, but referred to by the numbers prefixed to themin the table. Unless otherwise noted, references are always inthe order: Chontal, Seri, Mohave.

The correspondence m : m: m is found in words number 2,3, and 6. In 4, 21, 27, Chontal and Mohave retain m, but Serihas p, v, or nothing. Seri v :Mohave m in 29 probably be-longs to the same class: a corresponding Chontal stem has notbeen found. The formula f : p : m occurs in 9 and again in 23,and therefore is probably regular; p : m : m is found only in 14.Five of these ten Mohave stems containing m have been tracedin other Hokan languages: the corresponding forms all show m.The same is true of 17, m: m: w, m in Californian Hokan, whichthrows light on the origin of the rather uncommon and hithertounexplained w of Mohave.7

Chontal f does not always correspond to Mohave m: 33shows the equivalence f : x : p. This Chontal-Seri correspond-ence f: x is corroborated by Seri-Mohave f : h in number 15-the fricative character is retained, but the point of articulationchang4. Other cases of correspondence between labials andpalatals will be encountered; the dentals and alveolars seem toshift less frequently. The obvious course of a change from pal-atal to labial or reverse is through labialized palatals, especiallyif the palatal articulation is distinctly posterior. But it is notcertain that the f : x : p of 33 represents original f : x : f < f : f: f,for Esselen agrees with Mohave in this stem in showing p.

Unvarying p occurs in 5 and 7. In the former of these, por b persists in the Californian cognates.

Mohave v occurs in seven of the stems available for compar-ison. In these it shows a variety of correspondences:

7 Present series, xi, 182, 1914.

Other Hokan Languagesas, atsa, aka, xaama, ma, maksalaimita

ipli, apri, bal, hiba, i-penitsmi, sima-, samsi, etn

otci, itee, tee

daritci

aki, inti, ataxes, etca, eteni, ihmin, isiduk

iudi, ed, oxu, yufi, yumi, limoaxta, ax, axdixam, samai, masia-awa, ama, wowi, iwa-kabe, k 'ai-, ka 'a, ciefeahai, ga 'au, ii, i-amutas, kamul, kamots, tsamikxoka, axak, hak, hoki, ako, xotc, ko

Si, ie, ihimaima, apu, au-, ohoui, oi, u-sot, yup, asaisak, asmak, cima, i-sam, man 'gui-ta, tana, atan, dalla

ak, iya, ihdallahaiyuuwu, ohpi, owa, mohapawimato, bate, badjal-

1 Foot.2 Leg or foot.8 Cloud. Identity of the stem is established by Diegue-no

zkwi, rain.Old man.

"gh" perhaps represents a fricative.6 The form is extracted from the renditions shoo, shou, shob.7 Or ahoata. See the present series, xi, 180, 187, 1914.8 Given erroneously, ibid, 186, as amalya, which means leaf.9Leg.

1

23456789

1011121314151617181920212223242526272829303132333435

EnglishWaterEarthSkyLegTongueSleepHotRainWhiteWomanOldSaltSingAshNoseBloodHeartHouseStoneWoodStarTwoThreeDrinkFireEyeEarHandChildBoneDogTobaccoArrowLargeFoot

Chontala-haa-matse-maai-mits'i-paLcmaie-paLu-kwi(niga) -fuk-aa-kanoa-kweoghue5cow6a-pi

a-was

o-m-caxma

a-huLa-pikekecamna

o-kea-fancwa

u-nga

i-piwai-cmats

a-me

on-fantskwekai-tungU9

SeraxamtamimeipeLipLsim, kim

ipka-hpekmam

antip

-emaghifavatimosakoastehevacoxka-xku-mka-xpa-mkasiamakitoiSLOinoLoveitakaxcapi-axasaka-koL, ka-koxitova

Mohaveahaamataammayaime2ipalyaisma, sumaipilyikwe'nyamasameenya '-akakwora '-akaae 'iisvar, suvarhammulyeihuahwata7iwaavaavia'ihamuseha-vi-kha-mo-kioia 'auvai,oismalyka6isalyahumarisakaahataauvaipaku-vatay-a

1Kroeber: Serian, Tequi8tlatecan, and Hokan

18 h : k v California : w, (m)22 k :k :v California: x, h, k34 k :k :v California: b, m19 p :s :v California: b, f, ',-32 m :p :v California: w, h, hp25 ng : m: v California: m, p, h35 ng: v13 w :v California: m, n, -

The remarkable correspondence k :k :v seems reasonablyestablished, in spite of the fact that two of the Hokan cognateshave labials and one palatals. The same may be said of Chontalng as equated to Seri and Mohave v. This correspondence iscorroborated by the occurrence of both labials and palatals inthe Californian cognates. See in this connection also 32. Infact, the entire v group evidences the close relationship of labialsand palatals throughout Hokan. Number 13 is uncertain, theChontal w being only the present writer's hypothetical render-ing of several variants in the original.

Other instances of Chontal w occur in 16, where the formulais w: v: hw, with consistent x in the Californian languages, andin 24 and 26, where none of the other tongues show a correspond-ence and the Chontal sound may be of parasitic or vocalic origin.

The palatal stop k is found less frequently in other relationsthan in that with v. Number 30 has k common to Seri andMohave. Number 10 shows the formula k: k :. Mohave a isfrom Diegueino8 and general Yuman s; in this stem other Hokanwords also have dentals. The equivalence is, however, probableon account of an established s-h-k shift in Hokan.9

Chontal kw: Mohave kw occurs in 8 and 11; in the formercase the equivalent is pk in Seri, tc in several Californianlanguages.

For h :x :h see 1 and 31; for k :h: 20; the Seri-Mohavecorrespondence f : h in 15 has already been mentioned. Mohaveh is produced with some stricture;1O the difference between itand Seri x ("jj", "chk") is therefore probably not great.

S, with which I have included c, is in many cases persistentthroughout Hokan: see 6, 13, 21, 24, 27. Mohave 6 is shown

8 Present series, xI, 179, 1,914.9 Am. Anthropologist, n. s., xv, 651, 1914.10 Present series, x, 62, 1911; xi, 179, 1914.

.1915] 283


by its Dieguefno equivalent s to be a recent mutation, and theoccasional California variants ts, tc, h, are what might beanticipated in a large array of diversified dialects.

T is not very common in the stems used. The equation s: t: t,Californian t, d, is found in 16; t:t:t in 35; gh:t:6, Die-gueno s, Califomian k or t, in 12. The variation of the Cali-fornian languages between palatal and dental in this last wordmakes the Chontal-Seri-Mohave equivalence practically certain.

Two of the compared Mohave words, 2 and 31, contain thealveolar-prepalatal stop t,11 which occurs also in Diegueino. Inplace of this, Chontal shows ts in one case, Seri once t andonce s. It is not impossible that ts and t may here stand fora sound similar to t, the rendition of which has puzzled recordersin several Hokan and non-Hokan languages of California.

For laterals there is a well defined equivalence L: L: ly in 5,7, 27, 28, varied only once by the apparent substitution of ts inChontal. This correspondence is the more pregnant becauseDieguenio, and apparently the Yuman dialects in general, agreewith Chontal and Seri in retaining surd L where specializedMohave has acquired sonant palatalized ly. The CalifornianHokan languages in the same stems have 1, or its variants r,n, or -.

Mohave trilled r in 11, 13, 29 is without Chontal or Seriequivalent, except that one orthography of Seri 29 shows a finald, perhaps written for a sonant fricative corresponding to r.

The vowels of the three languages agree even more consist-ently than their consonants. A is unchanged in 1, 2, 3, 16(twice), 18, 19, 25, 30, 31, 33. The Californian languages alsoshow a in the great majority of their forms for these stems.The equivalence a:-: a occurs in 1, 2, 5, 6, 31. Mohave andDiegueiio unaccented vowels are often very light, so as to beeasily missed by an observer unfamiliar with the languages; butthis hardly explains the situation in Seri, as in all of the abovefive cases the missing Seri vowel corresponds to the most mark-edly accented one in the equivalent Mohave word.

Fewer instances appear of the agreement a o :a, namely,numbers 17, 27, 28, 34; but the correspondence is equally posi-

11 Present series, x, 57, 1911.

Kroeber: Serian, Tequistlatecan, and Hokan

tive. Seri o in these cases is clearly a special formation, as theCalifornian languages regularly show a. In the first three ofthe four words the equivalent Mohave a is accented. Chontalo and u, so far as comparable at all, correspond to Mohave a,Seri and the Californian languages showing less regular forms:9, 10, 12, 18, 25.

Chontal has a where Seri and Mohave show a, e, or i in3, 7, 10, 14, 24. Californian analogues vary between a and i.This appears to be an instance of assimilation in Chontal oforiginally distinct vowels.

Chontal e seems reducible to two types: e : e: a in 20, 29,32, and e : i (?) : i in 7, 12, 22. Californian analogues are sovariable that several original vowels may be involved.

Number 4 shows i : e : e, with which I am inclined to unitethe i : a: e of 8, on account of the Californian equivalents i ande. More frequently, however, i is unchanged in the three south-ern languages, as in 4, 5, 26, and, for Seri and Mohave at least,in 15, 28, 30. In every instance at least some of the Californiadialects also show i, but others do not; it is worthy of note thatin 5, 15, and 26 apparent metathesis of vowels occurs. In 6 theformula i : i : i is modified by loss of vowel in Chontal and in19 in Seri. The lost Chontal vowel is unaccented; that of Sericorresponds, like lost Seri a, to an accented vowel in Mohave.

These correspondences cover fully three-fourths of all com-parable vowels in the list.

The Chontal initial vowels separated in the list by a hyphenare included by Senior Belmar in a series of noun prefixes indi-cative of number. Thus he writes le-maa, sky, as if le were themorphological element and maa the noun stem. The equiva-lences of these "prefix" vowels with the initial vowels of thestem in the Seri and Mohave words are, however, so close thatit is clear they are not part of the prefix at all. The divisionshould be l-emaa. In the same way, under "Other Hokan Lan-guages" I have written Chimariko i-pen, u-sot, i-sam, i-ta. WhenDr. Dixon studied Chimariko as an independent'2 language, theseinitial sounds seemed to be connecting vowels of the possessiveprefixes of body part terms. But it is clear that here also the

12 Present series, v, 326, note 12, 1910.

1915] 285


division should be h-ipen, his tongue, not hi-pen. At one timeit seemed possible to Dr. Dixonl3 and myself14 that such formswere all from monosyllabic radicals; but a comparison of ChontalipaL, Seri ipL, Mohave ipalya, Chimariko ipen, Pomo hiba,Shastan ipli, proves the initial i to be part either of the originalstem or of a prefix which became definitely associated with thestem before the diverse and long separated Hokan languagesbecame detached from one another.

Apart from correspondences of specific sounds, one generalphonetic fact is clear about Hokan: fricatives, both surd andsonant, and in labial as well as in dental and palatal articu-lation, are exceptionally well developed. The contrast on thispoint is marked with Penutian, which is as bare of fricativesas it is at present the fashion to depict original Indo-Europeanspeech to have been, and with Uto-Azetaken, where stops alsolargely outnumber fricatives. Labial fricatives have long beennoted as excessively uncommon in American languages; yetwithin the limits of the Hokan group f occurs in Chontal, Seri,Esselen, Pomo, and Karok, and v in Seri. Mohave, and Karok.It is not to be argued that this f and v correspond directlyin the several languages or represent survivals of original fand v. In fact, the reverse is the case. Mohave v equateswith Seri-Chontal k and north Hokan m, w, b; Chontal f isa development from labial stops or nasals, Seri at least some-times from palatal fricatives. But the tendency for fricativesto appear is evidently deep-rooted in the family, and must beregarded as a significant character. This is confirmed by thefact that those languages, such as Yana and some of the Pomodialects, which are weakest in fricatives, are the ones in whichsonant stops are most pronounced. The theory of an underlyingimpulse toward fricatives would also explain the developmentof two such closely related and rare sounds as Mohave 0 and 8from such unrelated ones as s and y. I feel very strongly thatit is impossible to institute even slight comparisons among theHokan languages as a group, once this impulse has been per-ceived, without attaining to an ineradicable conviction of theiroriginal unity.

13 Am. Anthropologist, n. s., xv, 651, 1913.14 Present series, xi, 183, 1914.

1 Kroeber: Serian, Tequistlatecan, and Hokan

It may be worth while to add a few general Hokan parallelsfor Chontal and Seri for which no direct equivalents are knownin Mohave.

Night: Seri, amok; Chimariko, hime, himok-ni; Achomawi Shastan,mahektea; Esselen tumas; Pomo, duwe.

Sun: Seri, sax (moon: isax, sic); Esselen, asi; Chimariko, asi, day;Atsugewi Shastan, asiyi, day.

Navel: Chontal, a-tu; Shasta, edau; Achomawi Shastan, a'lu; Atsu-gewi Shastan, tsup'-; Chimariko, o-napu; Yana, -lak'i.

Person: Chontal, acans; Shasta, ic; Pomo, atca, teate; Chimariko,itci, man; Yana 'ihsi, man; Esselen, exi-.

I trust that this presentation will both establish the originalunity of Tequistlatecan, Serian, and Yuman, and help to allaythe doubts of those who may have remained unconvinced by theannouncement of Dr. Dixon and myself that seven Californianlanguages heretofore considered distinct could be united into theone family which we denominated Hokan. No one is betteraware than we of the slenderness of the evidence as yet pre-sented in support of our assertion; but our first serious suspic-ions of relationship are only recent, and each further hesitatinginquiry into the question has thrown open such vistas that thematerial has accumulated faster than we could handle it, anda delay in our promised proof has been inevitable. The presentlittle treatise may reveal some glimpses of the possibilities be-fore us.

There was a time when the merging of one of the acceptedNorth American linguistic stocks into another was a rare andnotable event in American anthropology, and the simultaneouswiping out of two was not heard of. That time is past. TheHokan family as here treated comprises what a few years sincewere regarded as nine families. That two others, Chumash andSalinan, might be includable was suggested a year ago by Dr.Dixon and myself. Since then Mr. J. P. Harrington has affirmedthe genetic unity of Chumash and Yuman.'5 As his studies inrecent years have made him the best informed authority on bothlanguages, his verdict must at least be taken seriously. If Chu-mash is Yuman, it is Hokan; and as Salinan will almost certainly

15 American Anthropologist, n. s., xv, 716, 1913.

1915] 287


go where Chumash goes, eleven'6 former families are now rangedunder the banner of one. The new Penutian family takes careof five other former stocks. Two are eliminated by Dr. Sapir'sdaring but unquestionably valid recognition of Wiyot and Yurokas Algonkin. The same investigator is also giving proof, suffi-ciently critical and detailed to satisfy the most pedantic, of therelationship of Shoshonean, Piman, and Nahuatlan, as firstaffirmed by Brinton, and accepted by the late Dr. Chamberlainand myself. Dr. Swanton has shown Natchezan to be Musk-hogean. His comparison of Athabascan, Haida, and Tlingit, ona suggestion of similarity long ago made by Dr. Boas, is incon-clusive, but in the light of events elsewhere forces the suspicionthat a re-examination may result in a positive establishment ofrelationship here also. The same may be said of Dr. Boas' otherdemonstration of resemblance of morphological type betweenSalishan, Wakashan, and Chemakuan. Still other unions andinclusions will undoubtedly be made. Hokan now stretches fromsouthern Mexico to southern Oregon. Inquiry in the complexlinguistic field of the latter state and of the coast to the northmay result in determinations at the very first touch.

We may accordingly be confident that the language map ofNorth America will be thoroughly recolored in a few years. Fora long period the Powell-Henshaw list of 58 stocks in Canadaand the United States stood almost unaltered. The convenienceof this first exhaustive and entirely definite classification wassg great that it was soon looked upon as fundamental, and theincentive to tamper with it was lost. The revision of the mapin the Handbook of American Indians in 1907 reduced the 58stocks only to 56. With the additional families formulated in1911 by Thomas and Swanton for Mexico and Central America,the total for the continent was 82. In a few years this hasshrunk to 64, with most of the field still lying under the old ban.At a chance gathering of anthropologists in Washington a fewmonths since, predictions were made, informally, it is true, andin part perhaps not very seriously, but with an undercurrent ofconviction, as to the number of families that would be generally

16 Really twelve, as Shasta and Achomawi-Atsugewi (Palaihnihan)were long considered distinct and only recently connected by Dr. Dixon,ibid., n. s., VII, 213, 1905.

Kroeber: Serian, Tequistlatecan, and Hokan

recognized in ten years. The estimates ranged from 15 to 30.Surely anthropologists may begin to realize that in these mattersa new order is upon them, merely through the progress of knowl-edge and without any abandonment of the safely conservativeprinciples of the past.

It has been suggested to me that while there is probably someunderlying truth in most of the recent inergings of stocks, thekind of relationship involved may be of a different sort fromwhat has heretofore been regarded as the relationship bindingtogether the members of a linguistic family. I wish to expressmy absolute opposition to this attitude. If Chontal and Seriare not related just as thoroughly and just as completely toYuman and Pomo and Chimariko as Omaha is to Dakota or asCherokee is to Iroquois or as Arapaho is to Delaware, they arenot related at all, and the present essay has entirely failed ofits purpose. I recognize only one criterion of relationship:reasonably demonstrable genetic unity. Either two languagescan be seen to have been originally one, or they cannot be seento have been one. The evidence may be of such kind and quan-tity as to leave us in doubt for a time; but there can be no suchthing as half-relationship. Philosophically, the concept of thelinguistic family may be of little moment or validity, like theconcept of species in biology; but for the organization and prac-tical control of knowledge both these categories are indispensable.And they can be of use only if they stand for something definiteand if as categories they are inflexible.

It is to me a particular gratification that the outcome of thisinvestigation re-establishes the findings of Brinton made by himon so much slighter evidence. Brinton was dogmatic beyond adoubt, and his attitudes seem at times inconsistent. But hiswork is permeated by a clear grasp and a lucidity of thoughtand expression; and these qualities are given their full value bya remarkable basic understanding, an instinctive feeling for phe-nomena of the human mind that has rarely been equaled in thefield of ethnology or linguistics. On the points here discussedBrinton's material was nearly worthless; we must bear him thegreater tribute for his power of intuitive sane insight and inter-pretation.

1915] 289


I should have liked to examine Brinton's further prognosisthat the Waikuri language of the southern portion of LowerCalifornia was also Yuman. The available information on thisidiom, however, all goes back to one very tenuous source, thepicturesquely abusive and spirited description of Baegert. Thefew words contained in this do not look like Yuman or evenHokan; but they are too few and too specialized to allow of anyvery certain conclusions. Unless new records from Lower Cali-fornia can be discovered, a final judgment as to the position ofWaikuri will not be possible until the comparative analysis ofthe Hokan languages has progressed so far that they can besuccessfully measured against the fragments of this obscuretongue. Pending this decision, Waikuri must be regarded asof unproved affinities and therefore held tentatively distinct.

Transmitted October 21,1914.

UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA PUBLICATIONS-(CONTINUED)

Vol. 7. 1. The Emeryville Shelimound, by Max Uhle. Pp. 1-106, plates 1-12, with38 text figures. June, 1907 ...................... . ..................... 1.25

2. Recent Investigations bearing upon the Question of the Occurrence ofNeocene Man in the Auriferous Gravels of California, by WilliamJ. Sinclair. Pp. 107-130, plates 13-14. February, 1908. .35

3. Pomo Indian Basketry, by S. A. Barrett. Pp. 133-306, plates 15-30,231 text figures. December, 1908 ... 1.75

4. Shellmounds of the San Francisco Bay Region, by N. C. Nelson.Pp. 309-356, plates 32-34. December, 1909 .. .50

5. The Ellis Landing Shellmound, by N. C. Nelson. Pp. 357426, plates36-50. April, 1910 ...................75

Index, pp. 427-443.

Vol. 8. 1. A Mission Record of the California Indians, from a Manuscript in theBancroft Library, by A. L. Kroeber. Pp. 1-27. May, 1908 ...... .25

2. The Ethnography of the Cahuilla Indians, by A. L. Kroeber. Pp. 29-68,plates 1-15. July, 1908................................ .75

3. The Religion of the Luiseflo and Diegueflo Indians of Southern Cali-fornia, by Constance Goddard Dubois. Pp. 69-186, plates 16-19.June, 1908 .1.25

4. The Culture of the Luiseflo Indians, by Philip Stedman Sparkman.Pp. 187-234, plate 20. August, 1908.. 0

5. Notes on Shoshonean Dialects of Southern California, by A. L. Kroe-ber. Pp. 235-269. September, 1909 ..85

6. The Religious Practices of the Dieguefio Indians, by T. T. Waterman.Pp. 271-358, plates 21-28. March, 1910................................. . .80

Index, pp. 359-369.

Vol. 9. 1. Yana Texts, by Edward Sapir, together with Yana Myths collected byRoland B. Dixon. Pp. 1-235. February, 1910 .2.50

2. The Chumash and Costanoan Languages, by A. L. Kroeber. Pp. 237-271.November, 1910.-------- ---------------------------------------------------------------35

3. The Languages of the Coast of California North of San Francisco, byA. L. Kroeber. Pp. 273-435, and map. April, 1911 .1.50

Index, pp. 437-439.

Vol. 10. 1. Phonetic Constituents of the Native Languages of California, by A.L. Kroeber. Pp. 1-12. May, 1911 ..10

2. The Phonetic Elements of the Northern Paiute Language, by T. T.Waterman. Pp. 13-44, plates 1-5. Novem1er, 1911 ..45

3. Phonetic Elements of the Mohave Language, by A. L. Eroeber. Pp.45-96, plates 6-20. November, 1911. .65

4. The Ethnology of the Salinan Indians, by J. Alden Mason. Pp. 97-240, plates 21-37. December, 1912 .1.75

5. Papago Verb Stems, by Juan Dolores. Pp. 241-263. August, 1913 .256. Notes on the Chilula Indians of Northwestern California, by Pliny

Earl Goddard. Pp. 265-288, plates 38-41. April, 1914..307. Chilula Texts, by Pliny Earle Goddard. Pp. 289-379. November,1914 .1.00

Index in press.

Vol. 11. 1. Elements of the Kato Language, by Pliny Earle Goddard. Pp. 1-176,plates 1-45. October, 1912 ................. 2.00

2. Phonetic Elements of the Dieguefio Language, by A. L. Kroeber andJ. P. Harrington. Pp. 177488. April, 1914 ...... ........... .10

3. Sarsi Texts, by Pliny Earle Goddard. Pp. 189-277 ............................ (In press)4. Serian, Tequistlatecan, and Hokan, by A. L. Kroeber. Pp. 279-290.

February, 1915 .............................. : .10

Volumes now completed:Volume 1. 1903-1904. 378 pages and 30 plates ............ .. ................ $4.25

Volume2.1904-1907. 893 pages and 21 plates .............................................................. 3.50Volume 3. 1905. The Morphology of the Hupa Language. 344 pages .................... 3.50Volume 4. 1906-1907. 374 pages, with 5 tables, 10 plates, and map ........... ............. 8.50

Volume5.1907-1910. 384 pages, with 25 plates ......................................................... 3.50Volume6.1908. 400 pages, with 3 maps ....................................... ........................ .50

Volume 7. 1907-1910. 443 pages and 50 plates ..............................3...... 8.50Volume8.1908-1910. 369 pages and 28 plates. ............................................................. 3.50

Volume 9. 1910-1911. 439 pages....... 8. .50

UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA PUBLICATIONS- (CONTINUED)

Note.-The University of California Publications are offered in exchange for the publi-cations of learned societies and institutions, universities and libraries. Complete lists of allthe-publications of the University will be sent upon request. For sample copies, lists ofpublications or other information, address the Manager of the University Press, Berkeley,California, U. S. A. All matter sent in exchange should be addressed to The ExchangeDepartment, University Library, Berkeley, California, U. S. A.

AGRICULTURAL SCIENCES.-E. B. Babcock, J. W. Gilmore, and C. B. Lipman, Editors.Price per volume, $3.50. Volumes I and II in progress.

ASTRONOMY.-W. W. Campbell, Editor. (Lick Observatory, Mt. Hamilton, Cal.)Publications of the Lick Observatory.-Volumes I-XI completed.

BOTANY.-W. A. Setchell, Editor. Price per volume $3.50. Volumes I (pp. 418), II (pp.360), III (pp. 400), and IV (pp. 397) completed. Volumes V and VI in progress.

CLASSICAL PHILOLOGY.-Edward B. Clapp, William A. Merrill, Herbert C. Nutting,Editors. Price per volume $2.00. Volume I (pp. 270) completed. Volume II Inprogress.

ECONONICS.-A. C. Miller, Editor.EDUCATION.-Edited by the Department of Education. Price per volume $2.50.ENGINEERING.-Edited under the direction of the Engineering Departments. This series

will contain contributions from the Colleges of Mechanics, Mining, and Civil Engi-neering. Volume I in progress.

GEOGRAPHY.-Ruliff S. Holway, Editor. Volume I in progress.GEOLOGY.-Bulletin of the Department of Geology. Andrew C. Lawson and John 0.

Merriam, Editors. Price per volume $3.50. Volumes I (pp. 435), IT (pp. 457), m(pp. 482), IV (pp. 462), V (pp. 458), VI (pp. 454), and VII (pp. 495, index in press)completed. Volume VIII in progress.

MODERN PHILOLOGY.-Volumes I (pp. 400) and II (pp. 373) completed. Volumes IIIand IV in progress.

PATHOLOGY.-Frederick P. Gay, Editor. Price per volume, $2.50. Volume I (pp. 347)completed. Volume II in progress.

PHOSOPHY.-G. H. Howison, Editor. Volume I (pp. 262) completed. Volume II inprogress. Price per volume $2.00.

PHEYSIOLOGY.-S. S. Maxwell, Editor.- Price per volume $2.00. Volumes I (pp. 217),II (pp. 215), III (pp. 197) completed. Volume IV in progress.

PSYCHOLOGY.-George M. Stratton, Editor. Volume I in progress.ZOOLOGY.-W. E. Ritter and C. A. Kofoid, Editors. Price per volume for volumes I-X,

$3.50; for volume XI and following, $5.00. Volumes I (pp. 317), II (pp. 382), III(pp. 383), IV (pp. 400), V (pp. 440), VI (pp. 478), VII (pp. 446), VIII (pp. 357), IX(pp. 365), X (pp. 417), and XI (pp. 538) completed. Volumes XII and XIII inprogress.

UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA CRONICLE.-An offlcial record of University life,issued quarterly, edited by a qommittee of the Faculty. Price, $1.00 per year. Cur-rent volume No. XVII.

Address all orders or requests for information concerning the above publications to TheUniversity Press, Berkeley, California.

European agent for the series in American Archaeology and Ethnology, Classical Phil-ology, Education, Philosophy, and Semitic Philology, Otto Harrassowitz, Leipzig. For theseries in Agricultural Sciences, Botany, Geography, Geology, Mathematics, Pathology,Physiology, Zoology, and also American Archaeology and Ethnology, B. Friedlaender &Sohn, Berlin.

Documents

SERIAN, TEQUISTLATECAN, AND HOKAN