American Indian and Indoeuropean Studies: Papers in Honor of Madison S. Beeler 9783110808681, 9789027978769

Citation preview

American Indian and Indoeuropean Studies

Trends in Linguistics Studies and Monographs 16

Editor

Werner Winter

Mouton Publishers The Hague · Paris · New York

American Indian and Indoeuropean Studies Papers in Honor of Madison S. Beeler

edited by

Kathryn Klar Margaret Langdon Shirley Silver

Mouton Publishers The Hague · Paris · New York

ISBN 90 279 7876 Χ © Copyright 1980 by Mouton Publishers, The Hague All rights reserved, including those of translation into foreign languages. No part of this book may be reproduced in any form - by photoprint, microfilm, or any other means nor transmitted nor translated into a machine language without written permission from the publisher. Typesetting: Η Charlesworth & Co Ltd, Huddersfield, England. Printing: Karl Gerike, Berlin. Binding: Lüderitz & Bauer Buchgewerbe jmbH, Berlin. Printed in Germany.

Preface

Madison Scott Beeler received his Ph.D. in Comparative Philology in 1936 from Harvard University. After two years of postdoctoral study in Europe and three years of teaching at Harvard, he came to the Department of German at the University of California, Berkeley in 1941. In the late 1950's he accepted a split appointment in German and Linguistics and in 1966 he transferred full-time to the Linguistics Department. During his thirty-six year tenure at Berkeley, he was a member of the original Linguistics Group (precursor of the Linguistics Department), served as chairman of three departments (German, Linguistics, and Near Eastern Languages), and participated in the activities of many Academic Senate committees. The grouping of contributions in this volume into American Indian studies, with emphasis on Californian languages, and into Indoeuropean studies, including Germanic linguistics, highlights the areal scope of Professor Beeler's scholarly involvement, and his comprehensive interest in languages. Moreover, many of the paper topics reflect the fact that among the contributors are a number of persons, representing several generations of linguists, who, as Beeler's colleagues and students, have benefited from his experience as philologist, comparativist, field linguist, and descriptivist. A hallmark of Beeler's linguistic writings has been an abiding respect for and an insightful use of data. His treatments of Venetic and Barbareno Chumash, for example, can be profitably used by linguists of any generation and theoretical persuasion. The diversity of theoretical orientations presented in this volume confirm his recognition that theories change faster than languages, and that without solid support of data theory remains hypothesis. No written tribute can adequately attest to the quality of the experience we, the editors, were privileged to share on being introduced to the methods of historical linguistics or to the structure of a language by a master teacher such as Madison Beeler. Nor can it describe the lasting friendship with which he has rewarded us. This volume, therefore, must remain an incomplete

VI

Preface

though heartfelt expression of our indebtedness and affection. In making special or additional tributes of their own, many persons have contributed in various ways to the preparation of this volume: Deby Beeler, who enthusiastically supported the project and helped plan the official presentation of the advance table of contents; Eileen Odegaard, who smoothed a number of administrative details; Hariklia Statha-Halikas, Alan Timberlake, Gary Holland, and William Shipley, who lightened the editorial burden. September 1977

Kathryn Klar Margaret Langdon Shirley Silver

Publications of Madison S. Beeler 1942 Review of Sten Konow, Khotansakische Grammatik, JAOS 62: 350-351. ca. 1945 "Japanese süji sum 'to clean' in American marine terminology", American Speech. (The exact reference cannot now be found, but this article was published ca. 1945-47.) 1948 "Morhof and Locke and the oral method in the teaching of foreign languages", Modem Language Forum 32: 95-105. 1949 "The Venetic language", U.C. Publications in Linguistics 4. 1952 "The relation of Latin and Osco-Umbrian", Language 28: 435-443. Review of Johannes Hubschmid, Vorindogermanische und jüngere Wortschichten in den romanischen Mundarten der Ostalpen, Romance Philology 6: 82-84. 1953 "America - The story of a name", Names 1: 1 - 1 4 . Review of Johannes Hubschmid, Praeromanica, Romance Philology 7: 77-80. 1954 "Four years of Beiträge", Names 2: 55-60. "Sonoma - Carquinez — Umunhum - Colma: Some disputed California names", Western Folklore 13: 268-277. 1955 "Yosemite and Tamalpais", Names 3: 185-188. "Saclan", IJAL 21: 201-209. Review of Albert Carney, Origines des noms de famille en Belgique, Language 31: 128-130. Review of California Indian Linguistic Records, Language 31: 165-1969. 1956 "Venetic and Italic", Collection Latomus 23: 38-48. 1957 "North Venetic Katus", in: Studies Presented to Joshua Whatmough (The Hague: Mouton), 17-21. "On etymologizing Indian place-names", Names 5: 236-240. Review of William J. Entwistle, Aspects of Language, Romance Philology 10: 232-235. 1958 "Remarks on the German noun inflection", Language Learning 8: 39-45. (with Β. E. Ulvestad) "On the Etymology of ON boyi 'submerged rock'", Arkiv for Nordisk Filologi 72:211 -222. 1959 "Saclan once more", IJAL 25: 67-68. 1961 "A new etymology: Germanic *erma//«(fl/l-reconsidered", Dichtung und Deutung, Gedächtnisschrift ßr Η. Μ. Wolff (Bern und München), 9 - 2 1 . "Northern Costanoan", IJAL 27: 191-197. "Senary counting in California Penutian", Anthropological Linguistics 3: 1 - 8 . Review of Ernst Pulgram, The tongues of Italy, prehistory and history, Romance Philology 15: 69-72. Review of Madison and Stillwell, How come it's called that?, Journal of American Folklore 74: 178-180. 1966 "The interrelationships within Italic", in: Ancient Indo-European dialects, ed. by Puhvel and Birnbaum (UC Press), 51-58. 1967 "The Ventureno Confesionario of Jose Senan, O.F.M.", UCPL 47. 1968 Review of Pukui and Elbert, Place Names of Hawaii, Language 44: 201-204. Review of Heizer, Languages, territories, and names of California Indian tribes, IJAL 34: 59-62. 1969 "Mass nouns and count nouns in German", Pacific Coast Philology A : 19-24. Review of La Linguia Venetica, Language, 45: 904-913. 1970 "Sibilant harmony in Chumash", IJAL 36: 14-17. "Etymological layers of the English lexicon", Romance Philology ·. 312-323. 1971 "Noptinte Yokuts", UCPL 65: 11-77. 1972 "An extension of San Francisco Bay Costonoan?", IJAL 38: 4 9 - 5 4 . "Inyo", Names 20: 56-59. 1973 Encyclopedia Britannica Articles: "Illyrian Language", 11: 1101-2; "Venetic

VIII

Publications of Madison S. Beeler

Language", 22: 952-53; "August Schleicher", 19: 1160. "A new edition of Venetic texts", Journal of Indo-European Studies 1: 2 4 5 251. 1974 (co-editor with Mary R. Haas of a posthumous publication) John P. Harrington, "Sibilants in Ventureno", UAL 40: 1 - 9 . Review of Ted Couro and Christina Hutcheson, Dictionary of Mesa Grande Diegueno, Names 22: 137-141. 1975 Review of Harold Haarmann, Der lateinische Lehnwortschatz im Kymrischen, Romance Philology 28: 626-630. Review of Vittoria Corazza, Le parole latine in gotico, Language 51: 983-986. Review of Michel Lejeune, Manuel de la langue venite; Kratylos 20: 94-101. 1976 "Barbareno Chumash grammar: A Farrago", in: M. Langdon and S. Silver, (eds.) Hokan Studies (= Janua Linguarum, Series Practica 181) (The Hague: Mouton), 251-269. 1977 (with Kathryn Klar) "Interior Chumash", The Journal of California Anthropology A: 287-305. 1978 "Esselen", The Journal of California Anthropology Papers in Linguistics 3-38. 1979 "Barbareno Chumash text and lexicon", Linguistic and literary studies in honor of Archibald A. Hill (The Hague: Mouton), 2: 171-193. 1979 "North-West Germanic -um = Gothic -am", in: Irmengard Rauch and Gerald F. Carr (eds.), Linguistic method: Essays in honor of Herbert Penzl (The Hague: Mouton). to appear "Place-names", to appear in: William C. Sturtevant (ed.), Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. XV: Languages (Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Institution). "The future perfect in Oscan-Umbrian", to appear in: Festschrift for Ernst Pulgram (Lisse: de Ridder). (with Kathryn Klar) "Island Chumash", prepared for a projected volume Studies in Chumash linguistics, to be edited by M. S. Beeler.

Table of contents

Kathryn Klar, Margaret Langdon, and Shirley Silver Preface Publications of Madison S. Beeler List of Contributors

V VII XIII

American Indian studies Richard B. Applegate Ethnosemantics of the dream helper in south-central California

3

James Bauman Chimariko placenames and the boundaries of Chimariko territory

11

Catherine A. Callaghan An 'Indo European' type paradigm in Proto Eastern Miwok

31

Wallace L. Chafe Consequential verbs in the Northern Iroquoian languages and elsewhere

43

G. L. Gamble The "old time" Chunut count

51

Victor Golla Some Yokuts-Maidun comparisons

57

Mary R. Haas Notes on Karok internal reconstruction

67

Mercedes Q. Hinkson Patterns of derivational affixation in the Spanish dialect of the last Rumsen speakers

77

X

Contents

William Η. Jacobsen, Jr. Washo bipartite verb stems

85

Terrence Kaufman Pre-Columbian borrowing involving Huastec

101

Kathryn A. Klar Northern Chumash numerals

113

Margaret Langdon and Pamela Munro Yuman numerals

121

Sally McLendon How languages die: A social history of unstable bilingualism among the Eastern Porno

137

Wick R. Miller Preaspirated consonants in Central Numic

151

Michael J. P. Nichols Renewal in Numic color systems

159

Mark Okrand Rumsen II: An evaluation of reconstitution

169

Robert L. Oswalt Ukiah : Yokaya

183

Bruce L. Pearson Nonimmediate as a semantic unit in Delaware

191

Harvey Pitkin Two plus two makes two

199

Jesse O. Sawyer The non-genetic relationship of Wappo and Yuki

209

Alice Schlichter English and Spanish loanwords in Wintu

221

Hansjakob Seiler Two systems of Cahuilla kinship expressions: labeling and descriptive

229

William Shipley Rumsen derivation

237

Shirley Silver Shasta and Konomihu

245

Contents

XI

Indoeuropean studies Sara Β. Aleshire Greek βούλομαι: Etymology and evolution

267

Frederic Amory The dönsk tunga in Early Medieval Normandy: a note

279

Foster W. Blaisdell, Jr. The present participle again — some observations based on an Old Norse text

291

Michael R. Dilts Extension versus convergence in the North Germanic verb

299

Μ. B. Emeneau Sanskrit bhögin- 'wealthy' palanquin-bearer'

315

'village headman; fisherman,

Alice Wyland Grundt Diphthongs in Old English

327

Eric P. Hamp Albanian eshte

337

Gary B. Holland On the origin of the 3rd sg. -r in Old Norse

347

James T. Hooker Indo-European themes in Homer

357

Jay Jasanoff The nominative singular of η-stems in Germanic

375

Martha B. Kendall The unethical dative

383

Karen C. Kossuth Definite default in Old Icelandic

395

Yakov Malkiel August Friedrich Pott as a pioneer of Romance linguistics

409

Johanna Nichols The syntax of Old Russian minhi (sja)

421

Herbert Penzl Notker's "Anlautgesetz" and generative phonology

441

XII

Contents

Orrin W. Robinson An exception to Old High German umlaut

449

Martin Schwartz The etymon of snake, snail, and sneak in the light of Indo-Iranian

461

Hasmig Seropian Indo-European, Classical Armenian, and Modern Armenian

469

Hariklia Statha-Halikas The Venetic r-forms in a comparative perspective

477

Werner Winter OInd. mähi: Gk. mega 'great' reconsidered

487

List of contributors

American Indian Studies Richard B. Applegate

P.O. Box 108, Tomales, California 94971

James Bauman

1711 Riggs Place, NW, Washington DC 20009

Catherine Callaghan

204 Dieter Cunx Hall, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio 43210

Wallace L. Chafe

Department of Linguistics, UC Berkeley, Berkeley, California 94720

Geoffrey Gamble

Laboratory of Anthropology, Washington State University, Pullman, Washington 99163

Victor Golla

Department of Anthropology, George Washington University, Washington DC 20052

Mary R. Haas

Department of Linguistics, UC Berkeley, Berkeley, California 94720

Mercedes Hinkson

Department of Linguistics, UC Berkeley, Berkeley, California 94720

William H. Jacobsen Jr.

Department of English, University of Nevada, Reno, Nevada 89507

Terrence Kaufman

Faculty of Arts and Sciences, Department of Anthropology, University of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15260

XIV

List of contributors

Kathryn A. Klar

Department of Linguistics, UC Berkeley, Berkeley, California 94720

Margaret Langdon

Department of Linguistics, UC San Diego, La Jolla, California 92093

Sally McLendon

Department of Anthropology, Hunter College of CUNY, 695 Park Ave., New York, New York 10021

Wick R. Müler

Linguistics Program, Stewart Building, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah 84112

Pamela Munro

Department of Linguistics, UC Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California 90024

Michael J. P. Nichols

486 Clipper Street, San Francisco, California 94114

Marc Okrand

Smithsonian Institution, Washington DC 20560

Robert L. Oswalt

California Indian Languages Center, 99 Purdue Avenue, Berkeley, California 94708

Bruce Pearson

Department of English, University of South Carolina, Columbia, South Carolina 29208

Harvey Pitkin

Department of Anthropology, Columbia University, New York, New York 10027

Jesse O. Sawyer

Department of Linguistics, UC Berkeley, Berkeley, California 94720

Alice Schlichter

Department of Linguistics, UC Berkeley, Berkeley, California 94720

Hansjakob Seiler

Institut für Sprachwissenschaft der Universität zu Köln D 5000 Köln 41, West Germany

William Shipley

Adlai E. Stevenson College, UC Santa Cruz, Santa Cruz, California 95064

Shirley Silver

Department of Anthropology, Sonoma State College, Rohnert Park, California 94928

List of contributors

XV

Indo-European studies Sara B. Aleshire

1428 Oxford Street, Berkeley, California 94704

Frederic Amory

Department of English, University Center, University of San Francisco, San Francisco, California 94117

Foster Blaisdell, Jr.

Department of Germanic Languages, Ballantine Hall 644, Indiana University, Bloomington, Indiana 47401

Michael R. Dilts

50 Folien Street, Number 508, Cambridge, Mass. 02138

Murray B. Emeneau

Department of Linguistics, UC Berkeley, Berkeley, California 94720

Alice Wyland Grundt

355 Serrano Drive, 10 K, San Francisco, California 94132

Eric P. Hamp

Department of Linguistics, University of Chicago, Chicago, Illinois 60637

Gary Holland

Department of Linguistics, UC Berkeley, Berkeley, California 94720

James T. Hooker

Department of Greek, University College of London, Gower Street, London WC1E6BT, England

Jay Jasanoff

Department of Linguistics, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY 14853

Martha B. Kendall

Department of Anthropology, University of Indiana, Bloomington, Indiana 47401

Karen C. Kossuth

Englisches Seminar, Westfälische WilhelmsUniversität, Johannesstr 12-20, D 4400 Münster

Yakov Malkiel

Department of Linguistics, UC Berkeley, Berkeley, California 94720

Johanna Nichols

Department of Slavic Languages and Literatures, UC Berkeley, Berkeley California 94720

XVI

List of contributors

Herbert Penzl

Department of German, UC Berkeley, Berkeley, California 94720

Orrin Robinson III

Department of German Studies, Stanford University, Stanford, California 94305

Martin Schwartz

Department of Near Eastern Studies, UC Berkeley, Berkeley, California 94720

Hasmig Seropian

Dept. of English, California State University, Chico, California 95926

Hariklia Statha-Halikas

Department of Linguistics, UC San Diego, La Jolla, California 92099

Werner Winter

von Liliencronstr. 2, D 2308 Preetz, West Germany

American Indian Studies

RICHARD Β. APPLEGATE

Ethnosemantics of the dream helper in south-central California

The concept of the dream helper or guardian spirit is well-developed and reasonably uniform among a number of aboriginal groups in south-central California. In the languages of these groups, which represent three major language families, terms for the core components of the dream helper complex show considerably less uniformity. However, there are recurrent semantic patterns which provide insight into the native conceptualization of the dream helper.

1

Background

The concept of the dream helper or guardian spirit has a broad distribution over North America in general and California in particular (Benedict 1923; Park 1938). Evidence of the dream helper complex in south-central California as a distinct culture area ranges from the excellent documentation of the Yokuts and Western Mono (Gayton 1930,1948), through partial data on the Tubatulabal (Voegelin 1938) and the Chumash (Harrington, n.d.; Beeler, n.d.), to scanty references for the Salinans (Mason 1918). The Kitanemuk (Harrington n.d.), straddling the border between south-central and southern cultural areas, share much the same concept of the dream helper, as may some of the coastal groups of southern California, such as the Luiseno and Diegueno, although the evidence here is quite scanty. The south-central California form of the dream helper complex presents nothing unique, but it is a unique combination of a number of elements. Both the shaman and the ordinary person, women as well as men, may acquire one or more dream helpers in adolescence or later in life, but the quest is not obligatory. The dream helper appears in a dream or drug-induced vision, often following such techniques as fasting, continence, and solitary bathing or praying in the night. The dream helper speaks to the dreamer, offering him

4

Richard Β. Applegate

or her supernatural power and protection, and gives a song and talisman which symbolize the helper and through which it can be evoked. The helper is usually an animal spirit, such as Owl or Coyote, but it might also be a ghost or some supernatural creature such as a dwarf or water monster, or even a personified natural force like Thunder. Among those groups in which the inherited totem appears, an individual's dream helper is often — but not necessarily — the same as his totem. Needless to say, beyond these broad outlines, a slightly different constellation of features characterizes the dream helper complex of each group and subgroup in the south-central area, such as reliance primarily on nighttime dreams versus drug-induced visions, or the presence or absence of inherited totems and their relation to the dream helper. But in general, there is basic agreement on the main outlines of the dream helper complex in south-central California as distinct from other culture provinces of the state. The term 'dream helper' is found in some of the ethnographic literature on south-central California (Gayton 1930,1948; Blackburn 1974; Applegate 1975), and I use it here as a south-central specialization rather than the more widespread term 'guardian spirit'. The word for dream helper may be etymologically related to the word for 'dream' in some south-central California languages, and the ambiguity of the English word 'helper' — between the notions of 'assistant' and 'patron' — neatly reflects some of the differences between the shaman's and the non-shaman's relationship with a dream helper. Three major unrelated language families are represented in south-central California: Hokan by Salinan and Chumash (and by Yuman Diegueno in southern California), Penutian by Yokuts, and Uto-Aztecan by Western Mono Tubatulabal, and Kitanemuk (and by Luiseno further south). Variation within Chumash is sufficiently great to warrant speaking of distinct Chumashan languages, and a similar situation exists within Yokuts. Despite linguistic differences, adjacent south-central groups often have very similar concepts of the dream helper: this seems to be particularly true of the Western Mono and the neighboring Central Foothill Yokuts, and of the Kitanemuk and the Ventureno Chumash. Semantic patterns, however, are more divergent across language boundaries, although there are striking recurrent patterns.

2

Terms of the dream helper

complex

The core concepts of the south-central California dream helper complex are the dream helper, the talisman, supernatural power in general, as well as the inherited totemic animal and even the notion of the pet. In native thought, these concepts are not as distinct as the English terms would imply; in most

Ethnosemantics of the dream helper in south-central California

5

of the south-central languages for which we have data, terms for these concepts show a good deal of overlap. In none of the south-central languages are all of these concepts terminologically distinct, and there is often no one term which unambiguously indicates one of these core concepts. Dream-helper related terms are discussed below, with areas of semantic overlap highlighted. 2.1 Chumash The Chumash languages provide the most striking example of this semantic indeterminacy, or — to put it more positively — the native terminology's richness of connotation. The Chumash ?ati$win with its wide range of meanings gives some idea of the conceptual ramifications of the dream helper complex. The term ?atiSwin occurs in all of the central Chumash languages. It is clearly related to, if not necessarily derived from, Ventureno Chumash 9 atihviZ, 'to dream', although 9ati$w& is not the primary word for dream; perhaps it means something more like 'to dream a dream of supernatural significance', or 'to see in a vision'. The two commonest senses of the term ?ati$win are 'dream helper' and 'talisman'. By extension, since the helper and the talisman both bestow power, ?ati$win also refers to supernatural power in general, as possessed not only by spirits, human beings, and animals, but even by things and places. On the physical side, 9atiSwin is not only the talisman representing the dream helper, it is any item of magical paraphernalia through which power flows, such as charm stones, shaman's pipes and whistles, and also medicines and poisons. The derivative term 9atiiwinii 'to have ?ati!>wiri can be used in a literal sense to mean anyone who has a dream helper or talisman. More commonly, this term plays upon the broader senses of ?ati$win, so that it means a shaman, or a specialist in the supernatural, or some other individual with much power. A figure much feared among the Ventureno Chumash is a poisoner, in league with the chief, called the ''altip?ati$win 'the one with much ?atiSwin' (Blackburn 1974: 102-103). The term for totem, $kaluk$, in Ineseno Chumash at least, is not used as a synonym for the dream helper; qo9 'pet' can also refer to an individual's totemic animal, but not to a dream helper. 2.2 Kitanemuk Among the Kitanemuk, the term kwäZfmukrefers both to the dream helper and to the talisman, and perhaps to supernatural power as well, paralleling the Chumash usage. The Kitanemuk have no totems, but the term 9ätsit 'pet' can also signify the dream helper (Alice Anderton, personal communication).

6

Richard Β. Applegate

2.3 Salinan Information on the Salinan version of the dream helper complex, in both its semantic and more general aspects, is the scantiest of all the south-central groups. Two textual occurrences of the term for dream helper, sotopeno and sotopni, differ in inflection, while tilaxal seems to refer both to the talisman and to supernatural power (Mason 1918: 92-93,108). The Salinanshad totems, but the word for totem and its possible overlap with the concepts of the pet and the dream helper are all unknown. 2.4 Tubatulabal The Tubatulabal have no term specifically for the dream helper. Like the Kitanemuk, the Tubatulabal have no totems, but puqgul 'pet' can refer to an animal spirit as a dream helper. The term ho.nun 'life' can mean both dream helper and talisman; ho:nun is the only term used for a non-animal helper such as a ghost, while an animal helper is ho. nun or puTjgul. The talisman itself, as a physical object, is also referred to as takinin (Voegelin 1938: 67). 2.5 Western Mono Among the Western Mono, the term mai'iwin refers to the dream helper, to the talisman, and to supernatural power in general; it is also the specific supernatural power of invisible magic escape. It is significant that one informant identified power and the helper with the term manosin, related to mansin 'dream' although others agreed on mai'iwin. The term puk 'dog' or 'pet' can refer both to an individual's totemic animal and to a dream helper (Gayton 1948: 272, 275-276). 2.6 Yokuts The semantics of the dream helper are most complex among the Yokuts languages, which is only fitting, because the south-central California version of the dream helper complex attains its greatest cultural elaboration among the Yokuts — at least the Yokuts groups of the Tulare-Lake and central foothill region. The terms cited by Gayton (1948) and Geoffrey Gamble (personal communication) draw upon a number of dialects, which might be most simply characterized here as southern valley (e.g. Yawelmani) versus central foothills (e.g. Wikchamni). Supernatural power, tipni, is everywhere terminologically distinct from the dream helper. The term is related to tipin, 'up, above; high, sky' in the valley dialects. The term for dream helper among the valley Yokuts is 9anetwal, which is based on 9anatwal 'to dream'. The foothill version of this verb, ?atjatwad, gives rise to ?arjtu 'doctor, shaman', meaning literally 'dreamer'. The foothill

Ethnosemantics of the dream helper in south-central California

7

term for dream helper, 9ainil·, is not related to the verb 'to dream'. The talisman is walat and waPac in the valley and the foothills respectively; these terms also mean 'necklace' and clearly emphasize the physical aspect of the talisman. The term for the totem animal, pu 9us in the valley and poh in the foothills, means 'dog' or 'pet' and it can also refer to the dream helper. Kroeber (1925: 513) illustrates a different term with the same semantic range when he quotes a Yaudanchi Yokuts bear shaman as saying, chechesh nim ngohoo 'my dog [pet] is the grizzly bear'.

3

Summary of dream helper

terminology

The following displays the semantic range of the dream-helper related terms discussed above. A dotted line indicates that the extension of a term to a particular meaning is in doubt.

λ

λ ^ ;

ν * *

Chumash

qo' kwaiimuk

Kitanemuk

?

atsit

sotopni

tiSaxal

Salinan

ho.nun

Tubatulabal

puijgul

takinin mai iwm

Western Mono

puk Southern Valley Yokuts

tipni

walat

?anetwal punts

Central Foothill Yokuts

tipni

waPai

?αίηϊί ροϊα

8

4

Richard Β. Applegate

Discussion and

conclusion

Two main cross-cutting patterns emerge here. One is the over-all pattern of dream helper terminology from language to language, and the other is the pattern of semantic overlap for particular terms. Not surprisingly, the southern valley and central foothill Yokuts show identical sets of terms and semantic domains; except for tipni 'supernatural power', which is common to both, the two sets of Yokuts terms are different, but exactly parallel. The pattern for the Kitanemuk and the Western Mono, both groups adjacent to the Yokuts, is similar to that of the Yokuts in having the term for pet and perhaps totem too also applying to the dream helper. The difference is that unlike the Yokuts, the Kitanemuk and Western Mono do not terminologically distinguish power and the talisman as a physical object, and this is true for the Chumash as well. It would seem that the Yokuts pattern is not only the most complex, in sheer number of terms; it is also perhaps the most central. As for the semantic overlap of particular terms, a number of parallels appear. First, even where there is a distinct term for talisman, the term for dream helper can nearly always apply to the talisman too. The distinction here is that the term for the talisman per se refers to the talisman as a material object, while the term which can mean both talisman and dream helper is applied to the talisman as a channel of supernatural power. Second, the dream helper in particular is not always terminologically distinct from supernatural power in general; the individual has access to power through the dream helper, which is power embodied and personalized. Third, in at least two of the languages of south-central California, the term for dream helper is related to or derived from some word meaning 'to dream'. Third, the term for pet can nearly always be applied to the dream helper, and in the groups with inherited animal totems, the term for the totem animal usually applies to the dream helper as well. For the Tubatulabal, this extension of pet to include the dream helper applies only to animal spirits as helpers; it is uncertain whether other south-central groups make this same distinction. At least two of the languages of southern California, Luiseno (Bright 1968: 6) and Dieguefio (Spier 1923: 321) also apply the term for pet to the dream helper; it is quite likely that this usage has a much broader distribution than just south-central California. These various semantic patterns closely reflect the average individual's experience of the dream helper in south-central California: an animal spirit, perhaps the same as the inherited totem, appears in a dream and offers power and a talisman symbolizing this relationship. The sum of these patterns enhances our insights into the native conceptualization of the dream helper.

Ethnosemantics of the dream helper in south-central California

9

Bibliography Applegate, R. B. 1975 "The Datura cult among the Chumash", The Journal of California Anthropology 2: 7 - 1 7 . Beeler, Μ. S. n.d. Barbareno Chumash texts (ms.) Benedict, R. F. 1923 "The concept of the guardian spirit in North America", Memoirs of the American Anthropological Association 29. Blackburn, T. 1974 "Ceremonial integration and social interaction in aboriginal California", in: ?antap: California Indian political and economic organization (Eds.: L. J. Bean - T. F. King) (Ramona: Ballena Press). Bright, W. 1968 A Luiseno dictionary (= University of California Publications in Linguistics 51). Gayton, A. H. 1930 "Yokuts-Mono chiefs and shamans", University of California Publications in American Archaeology and Ethnography 24: 361-420. 1948 "Yokuts and Western Mono ethnography", Anthropological Records 10: 1-302. Harrington, J. P. n.d. Unpublished manuscript materials on Chumash and Kitanemuk ethnography, National Anthropological Archives, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C. Kroeber, A. L. 1925 Handbook of the Indians of California (= Bureau of American Ethnology Bulletin 78). Mason, J. A. 1918 "The languages of the Salinan Indians", University of California Publications in American Archaeology and Ethnography 14: 1 - 1 5 4 . Park, W. Z. 1938 "Shamanism in Western North America", Northwestern University Studies in the Social Sciences 2. Spier, L. 1923 "Southern Diegueno customs", University of California Publications in American Archaeology and Ethnography 20: 297—358. Voegelin, E. W. 1938 "Tubatulabal ethnography", Anthropological Records 2: 1 - 9 0 .

JAMES BAUMAN

Chimariko placenames and the boundaries of Chimariko territory 1

1

Introduction

The Chimariko were a small, Hokan-related tribe in Trinity County, northwestern California (see Fig. 1). The precise geographic boundaries of the tribe are somewhat uncertain because events of the 19th century, particularly the Gold Rush, accelerated tremendously an already in-progress shrinkage of Chimariko domain and ultimately reduced the population to only a few survivors by the time modern ethnographic investigations were initiated. The present paper reevaluates Indian accounts of Chimariko territoriality and presents previously unpublished data on Chimariko placenames, with a view to reconstructing the actual extent of Chimariko occupation previous to the 19th century. Published accounts of Chimariko ethnogeography are limited to Stephen Powers' Tribes of California (1877: 91-95), Roland B. Dixon's The Chimariko Indians and Language (1910), and Alfred Kroeber's Handbook of the Indians of California (1925: 109-112) 2 . As Chimariko tribal integrity had been severely eroded during the 19th century, the data independently gathered by Dixon and Kroeber between 1901 and 1906 were necessarily obtained from people who had less-than-complete recollection of important ethnogeographic details. As a consequence, these investigators took a highly conservative view of the dimensions of Chimariko territory, limiting it to a short "20 mile stretch of the canyon of the Trinity from above the mouth of South Fork to French Creek" (Kroeber 1925: 109). Surrounding habitable territory was variously ascribed to different neighbors of the Chimariko, The New River area in its upper extent was thought to be occupied by the New River Shasta, while the lower course of the river was assigned to the Chimalakwe (Powers 1877: 91—92). The Chimalakwe were presumably distinct from the Chimariko proper, although as Dixon (1910: 296—297) points out, the name is unquestionably a variant

Chimariko placenames and the boundaries of Chimariko territory

13

of the root tcimar 'man', which forms the basis of the word "Chimariko" itself. Powers (1877: 92) states that the two groups spoke the same language. There would be no reason to suspect that this area was not originally Chimariko territory except for the fact that some of Dixon's and Kroeber's consultants denied that the Chimariko had any established settlements along the New River. They maintained that it had been utilized only for hunting purposes and implied that it had only recently been settled by the Hupa, a neighboring tribe to the northwest 3 . Powers (1877: 92) states that the area, although historically Chimalakwe, was being absorbed by the Hupa even before White contact during the 1850's4. There is much more certainty about the eastern and western extents of the Chimariko. Downriver5 of the mouth of South Fork was assuredly Hupa while the area upriver of Big Bar was occupied by the Wintu, though certain traditional accounts extend Chimariko territory in this direction to as far as Douglas. The occupation of territory south of the Chimariko-held Trinity, especially the areas bordering the South Fork and Hayfork drainages, is again less clearcut 6 . Certain accounts given to Dixon and Kroeber and recorded in their field notes maintained that at least some of this territory was Chimariko, especially that south of Burnt Ranch in the area of Hyampom. Dixon, however, deferred to P. E. Goddard's opinion, based on information from some of Goddard's Athapaskan consultants, that the territory was Athapaskan to the mouth of the South Fork. Kroeber checked the facts more closely with Wintus who provided him with more accurate, though not complete, information, namely that the area from Hayfork to and including Hyampom was occupied by people of their own tribe, thereby relegating the Athapaskans to the upper reaches of the South Fork in the vicinity of Forest Glen7. Thus, sandwiched as they were between conflicting Athapaskan and Wintu claims on this territory, the Chimariko claims were either overlooked or ignored by both Dixon and Kroeber. In this and other particulars the published record, useful as it is in setting the scene, is at variance with accounts or interpretations contained in unpublished sources. A truer picture of Chimariko territoriality must therefore be predicated on a careful examination of the latter materials. Most importantly, these include the field notes of Dixon, Kroeber, Edward Sapir, and John P. Harrington8. 2

Indian accounts of

territoriality

Systematic field work with native speakers of mid-Trinity area languages was begun by Kroeber in 1901 and 1902 with Friday (F) 9 and Dr. Tom (DT) and

14

James Bauman

was continued by Dixon with Mrs. [Polly] Dyer (PD) (cf. DixII for first name), Friday, Sally Noble (SN), and Abe Bush (AB) 10 . In 1921 Harrington worked for five full months with Sally Noble until shortly before her death in January, 1922 11 . He returned in 1928 to concentrate on the Hayfork-Hyampom area, working primarily with Ann McKay (AM), Billy George (BG), and John McKay, Sr. (JM). He returned again in 1931 to resume this work and extend it to the lower Trinity-New River area with new information from Lucy Montgomery (LM) and Saxy (S) who was half Hupa, half Chimariko. Sapir in 1927 had meanwhile worked with Saxy 12 , Abe Bush, and Martha Zeigler (MZ). In so far as their upbringing and language abilities differed, each of the above consultants had greater or lesser value as sources of specific placename information. It is critical that these abilities be weighed carefully in order to evaluate not only the reliability of the information specific consultants provided but also the strength of the conclusions reached by the different field workers. Dixon's main consultant Polly Dyer was apparently a full-blood Chimariko bom and raised at Taylor's Flat (DixII). Both Sally Noble and Martha Zeigler were her daughters by different husbands (NF 70), apparently both White, and in all likelihood the great majority of their information about Chimariko language and culture originated with their mother. No information is available about where the two daughters were raised, though Sally Noble was told by her mother that she had been born at Siroki (NF 196), almost certainly the present town of Helena (formerly North Fork). Sally Noble herself was unaware of the location, which suggests that she was raised elsewhere. These details are important for it was on Polly Dyer's word, simply reiterated by Martha Zeigler and Sally Noble, that Dixon states, "The survivors of the Chimariko most emphatically deny that they ever permanently occupied any part of New River, [but] that they merely visited and ascended it a short distance, and only for the purpose of hunting" (1910: 296). In the light of reports of other Chimariko and Hupa speakers this statement is somewhat suspect, if in nothing else than its strong emphasis of the point. For instance, Dr. Tom from whom Kroeber obtained some useful information in 1901 13 states that his language (i.e. Chimariko) was spoken all the way up the New River and that it was slightly different from the speech of Burnt Ranch (Krl307 [DT]). Dr. Tom was a Burnt Ranch Chimariko at least on his father's side and perhaps on his mother's as well (Krl308,4430 [DT]), although he apparently lived until middle life on the New River (Krl201 [Buck Kid's Mother]). The fact that he lived his entire life in the New River area, while Polly Dyer lived her early life mainly upriver, should lend greater weight to Dr. Tom's opinion. Friday, who was Chimariko on his father's side (Sapir [SB] ) 1 4 but raised

Chimariko placenames and the boundaries of Chimariko territory

15

primarily as a Hupa speaker15 by his mother, gave Kroeber the information that the New River people spoke the same as people on the Salmon River (Krl205 [F]). He was obviously referring to the upper reaches of the New River but his response raises an additional question as to Dixon's assessment of lower New River occupation since Friday seems to be at best noncommittal about this stretch of the river. There is additionally the information from three Hupa speakers, Berman Lack (BL), Sam Brown (SB), and Saxy, the last of whom also knew some minimal Chimariko. Sapir worked with all three in 1927 and they supplied him with what are probably the true facts about New River occupation, facts which accord with Powers' statement of a relatively recent Hupa habitation. Saxy, for instance, says that the Chimariko mixed with the Hupa on New River long before the Whites came and Lack says they spoke Chimariko and Hupa along the New River. Additionally, in a list titled Chimariko Villages (Hupa) Sapir presents among others some New River placenames in Hupa which Berman Lack and Sam Brown both regarded as Chimariko. The same mixed situation also appears to have characterized the area from Salyer to and including Burnt Ranch (PCN 1486 [S]), possibly also the eight mile stretch of habitable land on the South Fork from its mouth near Salyer16. A final item of importance was recorded by Sapir from Sam Brown who says that to older Hupas the Hupa term yina'tc'in 'people from upriver (i.e. the Chimariko)' covered the territory as far east as Hayfork and Junction City (Sapir [SB]), which was approximately the extent of territory that Abe Bush claimed for the Chimariko (MHH 90,97 [AB], DixII [AB(?>]). Sam Browr himself, however, understood it to encompass a much-truncated area comprising only the Trinity above Hupa to Taylor's Bar. It would seem that after about 1850, contact between the communities on the Trinity and those on the South Fork was curtailed. Previous to that date there appears to have been considerable contact between Hyampom and Burnt Ranch and Hyampom and Big Bar. Trips were made by overland trail rather than by river as canyons at various points are nearly impassable. Testimony of this contact is found in remarks of Abe Bush alluding to his mother's having known many Chimariko placenames on the Hyampom-Big Bar trail via Corral Bottom, most of which he had forgotten (PCN 299); of Sam Brown attesting that Hyampom people used to visit and attend ceremonials at Burnt Ranch and farther downriver (Sapir [SB, AB]); of Abe Bush again who said that his mother made many trips to Burnt Ranch although she properly belonged at Hyampom (MHH 98). The lessening of relations between the Trinity and the South Fork areas must have resulted in a rapid decline in the amount of information that people then in their youth absorbed about any place other than their own

16

James Bauman

immediate living area. As a consequence it appears that the Trinity area consultants were often mistaken or unknowledgeable about events or lore on the South Fork. For some reason this assessment also applies to Polly Dyer who misinformed Kroeber and Dixon (as well as her daughters), most importantly in glossing the placename given by Dixon as tranqöma as 'Hyampom' rather than 'Hayfork', a mistake repeated 25 years later by Sally Noble to Harrington. In short, sources other than these consultants must be turned to for reliable information regarding the South Fork area. Of critical importance here is the information given to Harrington by Abe Bush whose mother, Mary Bush Kerlin (MHHa 681 [BG]), was a full-blood Chimariko, though where she was born is in some doubt, perhaps Hyampom perhaps Cedar Flat. Abe Bush was born in Hayfork but moved to Hyampom when he was four years old (Sapir [AB]) and remained there until his death in the 1930's. At the time Sapir and Harrington worked with him he claimed not to have spoken Chimariko for 50 years although he undoubtedly heard it spoken until at least 1906 when his mother died (MHH 98 [AB]). He acknowledged, however, that he did understand it well. The language Abe Bush used with other older Indians of the area was Wintu, which he referred to in English as "Hayfork". Regardless of what the linguistic picture of Hyampom was like in the early 19th century, with the demise of the Indian population Wintu proved to be the only language viable in Hyampom in the mid-to-late 1800's as well as in 1906 when Dixon was working on the Trinity. Even though Dixon met Abe Bush he did not obtain sufficient information to satisfy himself or Kroeber that the linguistic history of the Hyampom area was more complex than they suspected. Of the others Harrington worked with in the Hyampom-Hayfork area, Billy George (also referred to as Whiskey Bill and Indian Billy17) and Ann McKay were the most valuable18. Because Billy George's mother was a full blood Chimariko (MHH 99 [AB]) he had more than passing familiarity with the language. However, his knowledge of the language was much less sure than Abe Bush's. Billy George lived in Hyampom a good part of his life but eventually settled near Wildwood where he met Sapir and Harrington. Harrington later travelled extensively with him over much of the South Fork and Trinity and there is consequently more information from Billy George than from Abe Bush. Ann McKay was originally from Hayfork (MHHa 708 [AM]) and spoke only Wintu, though after her marriage to Zachariah McKay, one of the early White settlers in Hyampom Valley, she moved to Hyampom and remained there until she died in the 1930's. She was therefore an important witness to the historical events of the area as well as a major source of information about local Wintu placenames. John McKay, Sr. was her son and served both

Chimariko placenames and the boundaries of Chimariko territory

17

as interpreter and independent source of data though Harrington depended on him much less. Various comments by these individuals point decidedly toward a stable Chimariko occupation of the South Fork as recently as the first generation back. For instance, there is the information that there were Chimariko speakers on South Fork Mountain, a high ridge paralleling the South Fork River (MHHa 696 [AM]), that Billy George's mother was a full-blood Chimariko (MHH 99 [AB]) and that his grandfather who lived in the lake area upriver of Hyampom was a Chimariko speaker (PCN 1594 [BG]), that there were Mad River (Athapaskan) Indians across South Fork Mountain who spoke Chimariko (PCN 1348), that many local Indians had both Chimariko and Wintu names (PCN 1361, 1362), that a half-Hupa, half-Trinity Chimariko man often visited Hyampom (PCN 1591), that there was a specifically Chimariko village at the mouth of Pelletreau Creek opposite Hyampom (PCN 1350-1351), that nearly all the old timers spoke both Chimariko and Wintu (PCN 530 [AB]). Remarks of Abe Bush's addressed directly to the question of where the boundary line was between the Chimariko and Wintu are given with certainty. He states at one point (PCN 1191) that the Hyampom people (meaning Chimarikos) held the South Fork River as far upstream as his place at Oak Flat and the Hayfork River as far upstream as where Trinity Camp is now located. The area of Indian Valley on the trail from Hyampom to Hayfork he presumed to be Wintu. On a separate occasion he claimed that the Chimarikos extended up the South Fork ten miles beyond his place to the Norgaard Ranch at which point there was a deep canyon separating them from what he variously calls the Low Gap or Wailaki Indians (MHH 97, DixII). He also positively states that Chimariko, though it really belonged at Hyampom, was also spoken at Junction and Douglas and probably even Lewiston, and that Douglas was both Chimariko and Wintu speaking (PCN 1193, MHH 90). Billy George denied Abe Bush's claim that Lewiston was Chimariko; he definitely knew it as Wintu. Otherwise he was unsure of the boundaries. Ann McKay, however, added that Wintu extended as far down the Trinity as Big Bar (MHH 48 [BG, AM]). Two points should be made clear. First, Abe Bush's remarks pertain to an earlier date than his own generation. He refers to Chimariko as the old language of the Trinity (PCN 1193). Second, his claims were not made on the basis of hearsay alone; he felt they were substantiated by the evidence of Chimariko placenames in these areas. Unfortunately, he was not always able to recall relevant names he had heard in his youth, expecially in areas distant from Hyampom. However, where information is available it serves to corroborate much of his claim.

18

3

James Bauman

Placename

evidence

The most important result of Harrington's investigations was the accumulation of a large number of placenames, approximately 250, in the areas bordering the different tribes, the great majority of which had each a Chimariko and a Hupa or Wintu name as appropriate to the area19. Significantly, nearly 85 per cent of these names are caiques or loan translations of one another 20 , for example, Big Mountain, northeast of Burnt Ranch as the Chimariko name mune9nat$e (NF 127) and Hupa name itakunäsantir) (PCN 1484 [S]) both literally meaning 'oak place'; or a South Fork River site downstream of Hyampom is in Chimariko pusuwa hisutpi and in Wintu tc'üspatkhidP, both literally 'wood sticks out' 21 . In many cases the different names were recorded from different speakers, most of them effectively monolingual, and the information can be reliably adjudged to represent early, established usage. In certain other cases particularly with data supplied by Abe Bush who was bilingual in Wintu and Chimariko one of the two language forms given may be a spontaneous translation with no real time depth. Fortunately, Harrington recorded consultants' judgements on whether a particular form was remembered from youth or was a new formation. As is always the case with loan translations there is the problem of establishing historical precedence, distinguishing the borrower from the lender. Taken by itself the mere existence of large numbers of such pairs of names cannot be taken as evidence of prior Chimariko occupation, though such a conclusion is perhaps suggested by the fact that the Chimarikos, suffering territorial losses to more dominant groups, would most likely not have been able to institute and perpetuate their own equivalents. Much more crucial are the data from the remaining 15 per cent of the placename equivalents where there is no loan translation relationship. In such cases factors such as the relative analyzability or etymological depth of one form versus the other or the possibility of one language having borrowed actual forms from another would be important considerations in establishing cultural priority. The pertinent data are organized regionally to reflect the various points of intrusion of Hupa or Wintu on Chimariko. I will consider first the New River territory to include also the area of the Trinity downriver of Burnt Ranch, then the area of the Trinity from Big Bar upriver, and last the area around Hyampom. Unless otherwise mentioned, all placenames are in Chimariko. 3.1 New River area placenames tcutamtatce (PCN 144 [AB]), Burnt Ranch, literally 'waterfalls (in river)'. (Cf. hitc'tamtu (PCN 145 [AB]) 'water runs down'.) This term is equivalent

Chimariko placenames and the boundaries of Chimariko territory

19

to Hupa tshentiq (PCN 1482, 1496 [S]) 'rock place' which is also given as the name of Ironsides Mountain directly to the north. The Wintu equivalent is hohem tc'aqhi7 (PCN 385 [AB]) 'big falls', and like all Wintu placenames in this area must be considered of no great antiquity. tcalita (PCN 544 [AB]), Ironsides Mountain, meaning not analyzable. The term is also derived as tcalitasom (PCN 550 [AB]) or tMdasom (NF 34) to designate the whole New River territory. The morpheme -som apparently means 'upstream' and is possibly derivationally related to the word samna with the same meaning. The Hupa word tshentirj refers to both Ironsides Mountain and Burnt Ranch. The Hupa name for the New River hitaqanilin (PCN 149 [S]) 'comes from up (north)' bears no relation to the Chimariko name. The Wintu word for Ironsides Mountain tcalitaphuyuq (PCN 504 [AM]) is a direct loan from Chimariko {phuyuq is Wintu for 'mountain'). maytca so?re (PCN 105, MHH 84 [AB]), the Thomas or Ladd place at the confluence of Quinby Creek with the New River, literally 'rough or ragged (?) field'. The meaning is queried because Sally Noble was unable to provide any meaning for so ?re and apparently Abe Bush guessed at the meaning. The Hupa equivalent is tlWuestii) 'long flat' (PCN 1482 [S]). hima9 hitchuktatce (NR 681, 3846), the Green or Hennessey place on the Trinity just above the mouth of the New River, literally 'head is lying there'. Whether or not the Hupa form given by Saxy hoytansänme (PCN 1495) 'you've got your head there' is an impromptu translation, some evidence of Chimariko priority can be deduced since Sally Noble was able to provide a modest explanation of the name from a remembered account of an Indian coming along and finding a dead man's head there. The name yaqha^natSe 'white oak place' (PCN 155 [SN]) also glossed 'Hennessey's place' is probably upriver or uphill from that spot. Saxy equated it with Hupa mitakatahtiij 'white oak country', though Sapir has the same name mtt'agat'a'diq 'black oak amongst place' 6 miles upriver from Burnt Ranch at Don Juan Point (Sapir [SB]). hime hakutle (NF 114, PCN 8 [SN], MHH 85 [AB]), identified as Big Creek, a tributary of the New River approximately 2 miles up from its mouth, meaning unanalyzable except that hime may be 'night'. Saxy provided a form tS'imäntanik'e (PCN 1484) with no literal meaning as the name for the stream at approximately the location of Big Creek, although he was uncertain as to whether this was a Hupa or Chimariko form; however, cf. Chimariko tc'imar 'man'. ? amaitatse (PCN 146 [SN], NF 109), Hawkin's Bar or Irving's place, meaning not analyzable. The Hupa equivalent khinsa?antiq (PCN 1496 [S]) has the transparent meaning 'a whole lot of trees'. ? tsxeposta (NF 100 [SN]), is identified as Dyer's ranch or Bell's Flat,

20

James Bauman

approximately 5 miles up the New River from its mouth. Neither Sally Noble nor Abe Bush could provide a meaning, though Martha Zeigler gave Sapir the meaning 'dusty place'. This is probably not reliable information. The Hupa equivalent is tc'e na• da Wdiij (Sapir [SB]) 'out again it goes place'. Saxy gave what is apparently the same form tYenantittir) (PCN 1483) but applied it to the mouth of the New River instead, giving kibiatelmetho9 (PCN 1483) as the Dyer place. However, the latter is in all probability the name for Hoboken Flat. tPra ?apxay (NC 677, 529), Bussell place at China Creek, a tributary of the New River, literally 'bird shit'. The Hupa form k'iyawmatSuwane (PCN 1483 [S]) is a caique of Chimariko and would not be included here except that Abe Bush, who was not familiar with this place, translated the Hupa into Chimariko as ti9ra hiwaxna 9ama, suggesting the possibility that the Chimariko provided by Sally Noble might have been lexically well-established before the Hupa form rather than being calqued on the Hupa. qha9ayawiSmutce (NF 127, PCN 101 [AB]), Forks of the New River, about 4 miles upriver of Denny, literally 'rock goes across place', though Sally Noble could provide no meaning for the second word. The Hupa term hit'aqetenänelii) (PCN 1485 [S]) Svhere creeks run together', is purely descriptive while the Chimariko form provides an important detail of the physical setting, suggesting perhaps its use as a ford. hissa hadamutle (PCN 153 [SN]), Dave Gray's place on the Trinity 2 miles downriver of the mouth of the New River, hissa means 'trail' but Sally Noble knows no meaning for the second word. Abe Bush (PCN 189 [AB]) believes it means 'where the trail comes down onto the level'. The Hupa equivalent is thaxöxliq (PCN 1492 [S]) 'ford river'. This placename is synonymous with what Kroeber recorded as hisaadamu (Dixon 1910: 380) but was unable to locate. 7 aqhaqhut (PCN 58 [SN]) appears not to be a real placename but its meaning 'down at the river' refers to large streams such as the New River and the Trinity, for which the Chimariko had no specific names. Dixon's (1910: 379) identification of tcitra as the Trinity River is in error. In fact the form is recorded in his notes as tcitri, the word for 'manzanita' and possibly refers to Taylor's Flat. The Hupa name for the New River hitaqamilin (PCN 1493 [S]) refers exclusively to this river and in its meaning 'comes from up (north)' suggests a point of reference somewhere to the south and perhaps an occupation of the New River postdating the Chimariko. 3.2

Big Bar area placenam es t$hit$hanma (PCN 159 [SN]) perhaps synonymous with tShitShanatSe (PCN 160 [SN])), Taylor Flat, literally 'manzanita place', although the usual

Chimariko placenames and the boundaries of Chimariko territory

21

Harrington recording for manzanita tshitshi has a different final vowel indicating that the placename uses a special and perhaps longstanding variant. The Wintu equivalent boloy xyerel' is interesting because the word xyerel' is said to refer to a place where Indians used to live but is currently deserted (PCN 348 [JM]). Witse (PCN 68 [SN]), (cf. äqitce 'Salt Ranch' (Dixon 1910: 379)), below North Fork (i.e. Helena), literally 'salt place'. This name, although in presumed Wintu territory, was not recognized as a placename by any of the Wintu speakers, although it could easily be translated as wefrorc'(PCN 130 [AB]). qha?a hetxattatle (PCN 64 [AB], PCN 79 [SN]). Sally Noble knew this placename well but could not locate it more specifically than way up the Trinity. The second word has no etymology, though qha9a is 'stone'. None of the Wintu speakers knew the name. photc'imihitcimu (PCN 1415 [AB]), Chaparral Mountain, the first word translates as 'bearskin' and the second word has apparently no etymology. The Wintu equivalent is recorded variously as tc'ilp'aqas waytoror'(PCN 386 [AM]) 'stretched bear hide north ridge' or as tc'ilp'aqas 9olphuyuq (PCN 1180 [AB]) 'bearskin up mountain'. sumna9ama (PCN 73 [SN]) (also recorded as samna?ama (PCN 383 [AB]), Manzanita Flat, just upstream of Big Bar, literally 'upstream land'. This is apparently as far upriver as Sally Noble could place the Chimariko, suggesting that the name may refer to the whole upriver Trinity area. The Wintu speakers knew no name for this place, although Abe Bush's mother used the same term to refer to the stretch of the South Fork River above his place at Oak Flat (MHH91 [AB]). tc'untxapmu (PCN 141 [SN, AB]), Big Flat, has no etymology. The Wintu equivalent is ts'araw khenpom' (PCN 363 [AB]) immediately analyzable as 'field down place'. hitcheqhut (PCN 150 [SN]) (cf. also an unidentified placename given to Kroeber, itcikut (Dixon 1910: 380)), the William Patterson place at Big Bar, formerly called Cox's Bar. Abe Bush (PCN 378) guessed at the meaning 'deerlick at edge of water' but the Wintu equivalent thudi khenk'odi9 'pounding where one comes down' (also given as thudi and thudidipom'1) suggests an etymology for the Chimariko in the verb hitSutSaxtiiax 'to pound violently' (LM 1704). Should this be so the Wintu form in all probability would be a loan translation from Chimariko. Note also that the phonetic similarity between k'odP and qhut may have led to what is an unusual choice of morpheme for a Wintu placename. tiltil 9atsuqha (MHH 102 [AB]), probably Big Bar Creek at Big Flat although Abe Bush also gives it as the name of Price Creek at Big Bar, literally

22

James Bauman

'fishhawk creek'. The Wintu equivalent is given by both Billy George and Ann McKay as tiltil norwäqat the meaning of which is variously given by Ann McKay as'ringing sound south creek' or 'killdeer south creek' (PCN 1370 [AM]). Abe Bush, however, feels that the true equivalent should be k'ulew norwäqat 'fishhawk creek' (PCN 301 [AB]) making it appear likely that the accepted Wintu form is a borrowing from Chimariko, one which was capable of being folk-etymologized (cf. Wintu til 'to ring'). siroki (PCN 75 [SN], PCN 62 [AB]), possibly French Creek near Del Loma (Taylor's Flat) though this was apparently only a guess by Abe Bush. There is no etymology and no Wintu equivalence. 3.3

Hyampom area placenames mayth (MHH 94 [AB]), Hyampom, literally 'field' or 'flat'. The Wintu equivalent is xayinpom (MHH 94 [AB]) which is literally the 'ground', pom, of the χayinbas 'Chimariko Indians (pertaining to both those of Hyampom and those of the Trinity River)'. xayin has no meaning other than to indicate this group. This placename alone provides strong presumptive evidence of Chimariko occupation of the Hyampom valley, since it explicitly identifies it as Chimariko territory. thnqhoma (MHH 86 [AB]), Hayfork 22 , no literal meaning. The Wintu equivalent is norelpom (NHH 61 [BG]) 'going south uphill place' which in its meaning suggests that it was named from some point to the north, presumably Douglas or Weaverville. hak'imtatce (PCN 1068 [AB, BG]), a spot in the South Fork River about 4 miles downriver of Hyampom. The meaning of this Chimariko form is apparently not transparent though, cued by the Wintu equivalent howoldilis 'driftwood piled up place' (PCN 1529 [CD]), the overall meaning was thought by the consultants to be something like 'float down place'. hamuhtsi (MHH 100 [AB], Ross ranch near Hayfork, no literal meaning. There does not appear to be a Wintu equivalent. hexasutse (PCN 1184, MHH 91 [AB]), falls in the Hayfork River about 2 miles upstream of Hyampom. On one occasion Abe Bush denied that the name had any literal meaning but on another he thought it referred to 'milt of a male salmon'. The Wintu equivalent is dubet tc'aqhi9 Vild potato falls'. hitsu khPnatce (PCN 1459 [AB]), a fishing hole on the South Fork River about 5 miles downstream of Hyampom, literal translation is approximately 'where water flows against a rock or bank'. It has no Wintu equivalent. maytcalla (PCN 463 [AB]), the Underwood place about 10 miles downstream of Hyampom on the South Fork River, literally 'little field'. The Wintu equivalent is ts'araw ?ilay 'little flat' (PCN 464 [BG]) and suggests to Billy George a Chimariko translation may tea 9uleyta, which makes use of the

Chimariko placenames and the boundaries of Chimariko territory

23

adjective 9uleyta 'small' rather than the diminutive suffix -la of the form given by Abe Bush. The inclusion of this placename here is predicated on an assumption that the use of the diminutive suffix indicates a morphologically marked form of greater antiquity than the Wintu phrasal equivalent. muneritce (PCN 1473, 1563 [AB]), where mines used to be located approximately 14 miles downstream of Hyampom on the South Fork River. The meaning is uncertain but it possibly refers to a type of bead. There is no Wintu equivalent recognized as a placename. paxkhotce maytca (PCN 1091 [BG, AB]), Grassy Flat about 5 miles southeast of Hyampom on the Hayfork trail, the first word has no literal meaning; maytca is 'field'. The first word of the Wintu equivalent phakotse ts'araw is obviously related to the Chimariko form, but again has no literal meaning {ts'araw is 'field'). It may be argued that the word is originally Chimariko and was borrowed by Wintu on the basis of the final syllable -tee (Wintu -tse) which is an extremely common placename suffix in Chimariko. paxxan9atce (PCN 1065 [AB]), Hinkley's field about 1 Vi miles downriver of Hyampom. No literal meaning is given except to say that it does not translate the Wintu equivalent kupäs ts'araw 'chokecherry flat'. p'usurqha9anwa (PCN 446 [AB, BG]), approximately 2lA miles north of Hyampom on the Trinity trail. This form is apparently abbreviated from a fuller form p'usur qha9an 9awa 'mouse rock house' suggested by the Wintu equivalent tefe sonqewel'. It can be argued that the abbreviation marks the Chimariko as the form in earlier use. sisillatce (PCN 1046 [AB]), small hill immediately north of the HayforkSouth Fork confluence, no literal meaning. The Wintu equivalent is variously given as sis puysono 9 and sos puysono 9 (PCN 1036,1081 [BG]) with meanings ranging from 'bedrock' to Svaterouzel east bill'. What may have occurred is that the first syllable of the Chimariko, sis-, was borrowed by Wintu and later folk-etymologized. tchurin 9atse (PCN 458 [AB]), Oren Treat's place 2% miles north of Hyampom, no literal meaning. The Wintu equivalent is phäykhenti9 'at the foot of the manzanita'. tc'upuqhutta (PCN 1085 [AB, BG]), a bluff on the north edge of the Hayfork River but not more precisely located. The Wintu equivalent is given as tsubüri khopol' 'rock rolling down in a hole' and possibly on this basis Abe Bush says that the Chimariko means 'rocks dropping in water and making a noise' though he also recognizes that khopol'has no exact match in the Chimariko form. Note the close phonetic similarity between the first two syllables of each form 23 , suggesting perhaps some more intimate loan relationship. wa9wayra9atce (PCN 1043 [AB, BG]), Will Olsen's place at Hyampom.

24

James Bauman

On the strength of the Wintu equivalent, ?5l ts'araw 'crow flat', the consultants assume a similar meaning for the Chimariko, though the expected form would be wa9ra 'crow'. They cannot explain the actual form taken by the placename. 9 apun9a txuylala (PCN 1291, 1447 [AB, BH]), a deep fishing hole in the South Fork River about 4 miles downstream of Hyampom. Abe Bush guesses the meaning to be 9apun?a 'cedar', txoy 'scent'. There appears to be no Wintu equivalent.

4

Conclusions

In all three of the areas concerned, only the Chimariko have placenames which are unanalyzable or only semi-transparent, while in no case is there a comparable etymological opacity in either the Hupa or Wintu equivalent. In several cases the Wintu and Hupa names indicate a directional orientation which implies that the places were named from another location. This is not generally true of the Chimariko names, except in a few cases where trails or unsettled territory are involved. In a few instances Wintu has borrowed all or part of a Chimariko placename especially when local flora or fauna are included within the name 24 . In other cases the Wintu seem to have borrowed a Chimariko form similar in shape to an existing morpheme in Wintu and folk-etymologized the meaning. Finally, in certain areas, especially around Big Bar and the South Fork downstream of Hyampom, Chimariko placenames have no Wintu equivalents at all, indicating greater Chimariko involvement with the region as a whole. Additionally, if the full range of loan translation data had been presented, as it was not possible to do here, it would be overwhelmingly obvious that caiques appear in almost every instance where the meaning of the Chimariko 25

form is analyzable . The few exceptions represent regional rather than point locations; for example, the Hupa word for the New River or the Wintu word for the Hyampom Valley, neither of which match the Chimariko in meaning. The historical conclusions which suggest themselves from the data are that the Chimariko people originally extended up the lower New River as far as the forks, up the Trinity at least as far as Helena (North Fork), along the South Fork from about 20 miles downstream of Hyampom to at least Oak Flat, and along the Hayfork River from Hyampom to Hayfork. In a few instances the information of various consultants is controverted or cannot be substantiated by consideration of the placenames. It has been shown here that the testimony of Polly Dyer, Sally Noble, and Martha Zeigler was unreliable where it concerned the New River. Abe Bush's claim of Chimariko occupation of the Trinity as far as Douglas and Lewiston remains opinion

Chimariko placenames and the boundaries of Chimariko territory

25

since none of the placename evidence convincingly demonstrates this. On the other hand there is some evidence placing Chimariko occupation further along the Hayfork River (or Hyampom-Hayfork trail) than he supposed, perhaps as far as Hayfork itself. However, the evidence consists of only two placenames and indicates a relatively long time depth. Should the analysis presented here stand against critical appraisal then certain conclusions would follow concerning the social mechanisms by which the Chimariko were being superseded by other groups. To suggest these very briefly, it would seem first that any a priori assumption of hard and fast boundaries between the separate groups is not tenable. The Chimarikos on two fronts seem to have had relatively stable political arrangements with their neighbors, involving the co-use and co-occupation of various tracts of border land. Secondly, these political arrangements fostered bilingualism in the concerned areas which was expressed in a significant amount of linguistic borrowing. Thirdly, the bilingual setting once established prepared the stage for the eventual assimilation of one group to the other given the appropriate stimuli. In the Chimariko case assimilation took place in the north to the Hupa and in the south to the Win tu, resulting in conflicting allegiances and reduced interaction between the two halves of the group. It is likely, then, that even without White incursions the process would have reached its endpoint in the elimination of the Chimarikos as an independent group. A set of events analogous to the Chimariko has occurred elsewhere in Cali26

fornia at least once. Lamb (1962: 460) , for example, describes the gradual, peaceful assimilation — mediated by bilingualism — of an originally Monachi speaking population to Yokuts. Other instances will undoubtedly appear as existing historical records are examined more closely. Essentially what has been sketched is a mechanism whereby no major cultural disruption occurs and where an immigrant group is able to assimilate gradually the necessary facts of the local environment. This allows it to function maximally even supposing the demise of the indigenous population. This mechanism contrasts sharply with one predicated on political upheaval and overthrow, which would necessarily produce a very different set of linguistic contact data, e.g., no necessary one-to-one correlation among named places; few caiques; and, overall, fewer placenames in the language of the intruding group. Consequently, given the historical facts regarding the interactions of two groups, such as the Monachi and Yokuts, predictions can be made about the nature of the contact data and, conversely, given a set of contact data, inferences can be made concerning the cultural prehistory of the concerned peoples.

26

James Bauman

Notes 1. I would like to thank Marc Okrand, Shirley Silver, and William Jacobsen for their detailed and valuable comments on an earlier draft of this paper, although I hold only myself responsible for the opinions expressed and any errors or omissions. 2. Cf. also Silver (1978). Her paper summarizes the so-far published work on Chimariko ethnography, including a brief discussion of territoriality; in addition it provides new information culled from field notes of J. P. Harrington (see note 8). 3. Chartkoff and Kona (1969), citing archaeological evidence, establish that the lower New River had in fäct been permanently settled and had not been merely a hunting area, as Dixon and Kroeber believed. 4. Adding to the general confusion regarding this area is Merriam's (1930) claim that the New River was the province of a distinct tribe called the Tlo-höm-tah'-hoi which subsumed Power's Chimalakwe as well as Dixon's New River Shasta and Konomihu. However, Dixon (1931) pointed out in a rejoinder to Merriam that the words Merriam recorded were almost all closely similar to Chimariko forms, thus effectively negating Merriam's claim. I find myself in agreement with Dixon on this matter and have further interpreted his discussion to mean that the groups on the lower New River and the Trinity proper were merely dialectally related forms of Chimariko. 5. The Trinity provides the major drainage of the area. Its flow is from east to west. 6. In correspondence with C. Hart Merriam (published in Heizer 1967: 2 2 6 - 2 2 9 ) , John P. Harrington alleges that he has evidence of the extension of Chimariko territory as far south as Hettenshaw in Mad River country. This claim, however, was based on the reports of only one consultant, Mrs. Zack Bussell, and is not backed by placename evidence. The name Hettenshaw which Mrs. Bussell believed to be a Chimariko name is actually based on Wintu xyetin 'wild potato species'. 7. This statement is correct only as it concerns non-Hupa Athapaskans. There was Hupa occupation in the 10-or-so-mile stretch of the South Fork before its confluence with the Trinity. 8. The Harrington notes on which this paper is based on are the property of the National Anthropological Archives, Smithsonian Institution. The other materials were consulted at the Survey of California and Other Indian Languages at the University of California, Berkeley. Dixon's materials are cited as Dix, number of notebook in Roman numeral, and page number, e.g., DixII23; Kroeber's material as Kr followed by a four digit number, the first two digits providing the notebook number and the last two the page number, e.g., Kr4405. Sapir's original field notes are currently in the keeping of the American Philosophical Society in Philadelphia and were not consulted. Citations marked Sapir refer to entries from a slip file constructed by Sapir from the original notes. The Harrington notes are cited as follows: PCN identifies a collection of approximately 1700 pages of notes mainly dealing with placenames in the entire Trinity drainage area. The languages recorded include Wintu (abbreviated by Harrington as Hf for Hayfork Wintu), Chimariko (abbreviated as xay for xayinbas the Wintu word for the Chimariko or as Chim), and Hupa (abbreviated as Hup or H); MHH or MHHa, Miscellaneous Hayfork-Hyampom, identifies a collection of approximately 1200 pages consisting of many placename references as well as ethnobiological information. Languages are either Chimariko or Wintu: NF, Noble First Run, identifies a set of exclusively Chimariko notes containing general linguistic and ethnographic information obtained from Sally Noble; LM identifies rehearings of the Noble notes with Lucy Montgomery as consultant; AT?, Noble Rehearing, and NC, Noble Copy, identify other Harrington Chimariko materials consisting mainly of rehearings, recopyings, or texts. There are additional Chimariko field notes recorded by C. Hart Merriam which

Chimariko placenames and the boundaries of Chimariko territory

9. 10.

11.

12.

13.

14.

15.

16. 17.

18.

19.

20.

27

unfortunately there was no opportunity to examine. They were, however, collected from Abe Bush (mentioned by Harrington (PCN 1474-5)) and Sally Noble (cf. Heizer 1967: 226), both of whom Harrington worked with exhaustively. P. E. Goddard's few pages of Chimariko field notes (collected from Sally Noble) were also examined but not utilized as they contained no relevant information. Initials of consultants will be enclosed in square brackets following a page reference from the notes. Sally Noble and Abe Bush are given no mention in Dixon (1910) although the former is fairly well represented (cf. Dixl, II). It appears though that data from Abe Bush is limited to two pages (DixII24-5). This information was obtained from unpublished Merriam-Harrington correspondence housed in the C. Hart Merriam collection at the University of California, Berkeley. In an unpublished manuscript written by Morris Swadesh (n.d.) attempting to put the Sapir Chimariko materials in order, Sapir's abbreviation S.B. is erroneously identified as Saxey Bush when it in truth refers to Sam Brown, a Hupa speaker. This led to a few inconsistencies in Swadesh's evaluation of the worth of Saxy's data. As far as I can determine Saxy had no second name. When Dixon worked with him five years later in 1906, Dr. Tom had apparently undergone some mental deterioration and Dixon says he proved of no use. This should not reflect on the value of the Kroeber material from Dr. Tom, which on rechecking has proved generally reliable. Dixon (1910: 295) makes Friday half-Wintu, half-Hupa, possibly based on information from Kroeber (Kr 4414). Kroeber seems to have interpreted Friday's statements that his father was half-Hyampom, half-Burnt Ranch (Kr 1205 [F]) as indicating Wintu parentage based on a preconception that Hyampom was a Wintuspeaking area. However, Wintu and Chimariko consultants concur that labeling someone as Hyampom typically identifies that person as Chimariko. Abe Bush claimed that Friday, whom he knew from the latter's frequent trips to Hyampom, spoke "very broken" Chimariko. Friday talked mainly Hupa, although he also knew a little Wintu (MHH 98). Berman Lack and Sam Brown list both of these areas along with the New River as originally sites of Chimariko villages, the names of which they give in Hupa (Sapir). Whiskey Bill was the name that Harrington first used in recording Billy George in 1928. From the way in which he handled these same notes in 1931 it is quite apparent that this is the same person variously referred to as Billy, Bh, Bhf, or Bch. Indian Billy was apparently how Abe Bush mentioned Billy George to Sapir. I would like to thank Leonard and Dorothy Tardiff of Hyampom for the help they gave me in clarifying genealogical facts that Harrington left unmentioned. Mrs. Tardiff is a granddaughter of Billy George and remembers Harrington working with him, Ann McKay, and Abe Bush in 1931. In addition the Tardiffs were able to identify certain Wintu consultants whom Harrington indicated only by abbreviation. These include: Kate Luckie (KL) of Hayfork, Joe Charles (JC) of Lewiston, and Charlie Daniels (CD) of Douglas. In recording Harrington forms the following orthographic changes have been made: C = C h ; q = χ; Κ = q; j = y; / = 'C or V' = 9 C or V . In addition, accent marks are not recorded. In citing placenames where Harrington has provided a variety of recordings only one of the several has been presented. The choice is based on Harrington's judgment of phonetic accuracy or, where no such judgment is rendered, simply on the speech of Sally Noble for the Trinity area and of Abe Bush for the South Fork area. In no case should the data be construed as representing a phonemic recording. Furthermore, no attempt has been made to correlate and standardize the orthographies of the several field workers. There are apparently other examples of loan translations in the general vocabulary.

28

21.

22. 23. 24.

25.

26.

James Bauman For example, 'coyote' is Chimariko matrantPra and Wintu ts'ara?wa (MHH 62 [BG]) both literally 'field animal'; a clover species is in Chimariko ?aqhan kotchu (MHHa 646 [KL]) and Wintu meminbes (NC 739) both having to do with water. Also the words for 'porcupine' and 'star' are homophonous in both languages, Chimariko munno, Wintu tZattus (MHH 42 [BG]). Information on the etymology of Wintu placenames, when not explicitly provided by Harrington, was sometimes available from an unpublished dictionary (Schlichter 1976). Dixon's (1910: 379) identification of this name as Hyampom is incorrect. What is possibly the same root is given by Schlichter (1976) as i'Ub 'to drip'. Note the initial ejective. No systematic survey of biological nomenclature was possible, though during the course of the placename investigation a few direct loans were encountered; e.g., Chimariko muttuma?na 'redwood tree' cf. Wintu muttumani9 (MHH 35 [BG]), and Chimariko tewtew?na 'maidenhair fern used for making baskets' cf. Wintu tewtew' 'fern for making baskets' (MHHa 638 [KL]). There are, however, many instances where a Chimariko equivalent for either a Wintu or Hupa form is not given and among these there may have been exceptions to this generalization. My thanks to William Jacobsen for referring me to this article.

Bibliography Chartkoff, Joseph L. - Laurie Jan Kona 1969 New River ethnozoology and archaeology (Robert E. Schenk Archives of California Archaeology, Paper number 31) (Society for California Archaeology, Adam E. Treganza Anthropology Museum, San Francisco State College, San Francisco). Dixon, Roland B. 1910 The Chimariko Indians and language, (University of California Publications in American Archaeology and Ethnology, 5, No. 67) (Berkeley: University of California Press). 1931 "Dr. Merriam's 'Tlo-hom-tah'-hoi' ", American Anthropologist (n.s.) 33: 264-267. Heizer, Robert F. (ed.) 1967 C. Hart Merriam's ethnographic notes on California Indian tribes II. Ethnological notes on northern and southern California Indian tribes (= Reports of the University of California Archaeological Survey, 18, Part II) (Berkeley: University of California Archaeological Research Facility, Department of Anthropology). Kroeber, A. L. 1925 Handbook ο f the Indians of California (= Bureau of American Ethnology, Bulletin 78). [Reprinted 1953. Berkeley: California Book Company.] Lamb, Sydney M. 1962 "Linguistic diversification and extinction in North America", International Congress of Americanists, 35th Acts and Proceedings Vol. 2: 4 5 7 - 4 6 4 . Merriam, C. Hart 1930 "The New River Indians Tlo-hom-tah'-hoi", American Anthropologist (n.s) 32: 2 8 0 - 2 9 3 . Powers, Stephen 1877 Tribes of California (= Contributions to North American Ethnology Vol. Ill) (Washington, D.C.: Department of the Interior, U.S. Geographical and Geological Survey of the Rocky Mountain Region). [Reprinted 1976. Berkeley: University of California Press.]

Chimariko placenames and the boundaries of Chimariko territory

29

Schlichter, Alice 1976 "Wintu dictionary" (ms.). Silver, Shirley 1978 "The Chimariko", in: Handbook of North American Indians. 8 California (Ed.: Robert F. Heizer) (Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Institution), 2 0 5 210. Swadesh, Morris n.d. "Chimariko in the light of Sapir's data" (ms.).

CATHERINE A. CALLAGHAN

An 'Indo-European' type paradigm in Proto Eastern Miwok1

It has long been recognized that linguists must exercise extreme caution in the semantics of items selected for comparative purposes. Not only must loan words and onomatopoetic expressions be rigorously excluded, but also words like "mama" and "papa", which tend to reappear in their elemental form across language boundaries and in different stages of the same language. In the latter case, the probable cause is the early acquisition of low central vowels and bilabials. But comparativists have generally considered the paradigm to be above suspicion; indeed, to provide the clinching argment in favor of genetic affiliation between two language families. This paper will investigate the Proto Eastern Miwok declarative paradigm which is so strikingly similar to the Indo European active secondary endings that one might be tempted to propose kinship if there were not an ocean and a continent between the aboriginal Miwok and the nearest Indo-European speakers. Miwok is a family of Penutian languages formerly spoken in Central California. Aboriginally, it consisted of at least seven languages, roughly at the time depth of the Germanic family . On the basis of lexical items, structural similarity, and sound correspondences, these may be grouped as follows: I. Eastern Miwok (Mie) A. Sierra Miwok (Mis) 1. Northern Sierra Miwok (Mins) 2. Central Sierra Miwok (Mies) 3. Southern Sierra Miwok (Miss) B. Plains Miwok (Mip) C. Saclan (Misac) II. Western Miwok (Miw) A. Coast Miwok (Mic). Coast Miwok was probably a single language with various dialects. 1. Bodega Miwok (Mib) 2. Marin Miwok (Mim) B. Lake Miwok (Mil)

32

Catherine A. Callaghan

The geographical distribution of these languages can be determined from the map of Central California Indian languages with the Miwok speech areas outlined in dark black. Roughly, the Sierra languages are along the western slopes of the Sierra Nevada Mountains. Plains Miwok was spoken in the northern San Joaquin Valley from lone to Stockton, and Saclan may have been the language of the Lafayette-Walnut Creek area (Beeler 1955, 1959). The Western Miwok languages were spoken on the Marin Peninsula and inland south of Clear Lake. We have only a short word list for Saclan, now extinct, and I have never been able to satisfactorily elicit Marin Miwok data. The Miwok family is in turn related to the Costanoan languages spoken from San Francisco south to Big Sur3. Any wider affiliations are purely hypothetical at this time4. Principal correspondences showing subdivisions within Miwok are given in Chart 1 s . It is important to keep in mind the structure of the Miwok family tree which allows reconstruction at different time depths. Proto Sierra Miwok, for example, can be reconstructed by comparing the three Sierra Miwok languages, which just escape being mutually intelligible. Proto Eastern Miwok reconstructions derive from a comparison of Plains Miwok with Sierra Miwok. The word *£o • se-, which probably meant 'bedrock mortar' can be reconstructed for Proto Sierra Miwok, which would put the unity of the subfamily into the Late Horizon or after 300—900 A.D. (James A. Bennyhoff, personal communication). Plains and Sierra Miwok are about as far apart as Western Romance, which gives a very shallow time depth for Proto Eastern Miwok. We see, then, that there is temporal as well as spacial displacement from the Proto Indo European community, especially in view of the fact that there is no justification in Western Miwok or Costanoan for projecting the declarative paradigm back to an earlier time period. The sharpest morphological cleavage between Eastern and Western Miwok occurs in the verbal morphology. Eastern Miwok is polysynthetic, and its verbs change for person, number, tense, and mode by means of four sets of inflectual suffixes (declarative, volitional, possessive, and nominal). Two of these, the declarative and volitional, have special forms expressing object incorporation. The declarative suffixes (Chart 2) 6 may follow the verb stem directly, in which case they express ongoing action, as in Miss ?am · y-m Ί give, am giving' . They also follow the perfect tense marker -ak, as in Miss 9am • -ak-sy ^ o u (sg.) have given'. The volitional suffixes express purpose, possibility, and command, as in Miss ?u • k-e-c · i 'all of you go in' where · k- means 'to enter', -e- is the imperative modal marker, and -c· i is '2 pi. volitional'. The possessive suffixes express possession of nouns, and the subject of verbs in the subjunctive (if clauses) and distant past. Examples are Mies

34 Chart 1

Catherine A. Callaghan Principal correspondences showing the subdivisions within Miwok

PMi

Miss

Mies

Μ ins PMis Mip

PMie Mil

*P *t *t/#_ *t/o, a_ * t/V+h'V+hi

Ρ t t t s c, s k 9 S -hkh h m η, η w 1 j i e a ο u y(-) y y y y Y

Ρ t t t S c k 9 S -sks h m n,q w I j i e a ο u y(·) y y y y Y

Ρ t t t s c k 9 s, h -sks, h h m n, q w 1 j i e a 0 u y(0 y y y y Y

*p *t *t *t *s *c *k *9 *s *-sk*s *h *m *n *w

*k *9 s *-sks *h *m *n *w *1 *j *i *e *a *o *u *y(-)/C_ *y/_mC *y/C_C-a *y elsewhere *γ

*P *t *t *t *s

Ρ t t t, C s c *k k *9 9 *s s, h *-sk- -sk*s s, h *h h *m m *n,*q n w *w *1 1 j *j i *i *e e *a a *o 0 *u u *y(·) 3 ( 0 *y 3 *y a *y 3 *y y,a *γ Y

Mib

p7_o,p Ρ t t t t c c t t c,-h c,-h k k 9 9 s, -h s, -h -skik" s, -h s, -h h h m m n,d, φ n, Φ w w 1 1 j j *i *i i, e i, e *e e, i e, i *a a a *o 0 ο *u u u e(-) *y(·) e(·) *y e e i i 0 0 •y u •u *γ i, u i, u

PMiw

Co

*P *t *t

Ρ t t, t t-1 t 2 k.s

*ζ *t *k #9 *s *-sk*h *m *n *w *1 •j *i *e *a *o *u *e(") *e *i *o *u *i, *u

s,

ί

χ, k X m n w, k w l,r j i e, a a, e ο u

i i i, e

koca-t 'my house', where koca- is 'house' and -t is 'my'; nan · -e-t 'if I find', where nany-means 'to find' and -e- is the marker of the conditional mode, and hywat-· any-7-mas Sve ran', where hywat- is 'run' (Stem II), -· any- expresses distant past, is the nominative case marker, and -mas means 'we'. The last construction is more accurately translated 'it is our past running'. The nominal series expresses person in the noun, the subject of verbs in the continuative, recent past, and future, and the pronominal object. Examples are Mies haja• po • -te-? Ί am a chief where haja· po- means 'chief', -te- is T , and marks the nominative case; najy?- • e-te-? Ί scolded', where najy9is 'scold (Stem II)' and - · e- is 'recent past'; and jyl · y-t 'he bites me', where jyl-y-means 'to bite'. Most of these constructions are followed by a case suffix (usually the nominative), hence the name of the series. Only the possessive series can be reconstructed in full for Proto Miwok. This series was derived through affixation of weakened forms of Proto Miwok independent pronouns, which presumably clustered both before and after the

An 'Indo-European' type paradigm in Proto Eastern Miwok eC ο t ε- >^> Ε Srtü(Λ. S g.g i f l §Ö u 2 nIHKCO ν

3 Ό Ο £ ο *SSE *

ο

ω £s Qu

* *

v

Ρ ν i * *

«·I i *

V 1

*

4? -9- V •δε

λ ε *

*

.a ε I ; ι >- ö «§

)

« s, υ

.yο ; 9· υ, C A CO• ^ Ο • 3Ο. 2 Ο, 3

3 Ρ·

υ s

Tj ε

ε

00 ωc

ο

ο.ι « 3

Χ ει *Ο 3Τi ?* 3 •5 Ε *Ρ.Κ'S u

•S s

(?

I

J

sh O

*

•r a- I α. I I *ε * * i OA CS

2

i

* »? V

?rt

O.

35

-φ.

ο• -s Ξε

'

Μ

ο

ι

3 D