ANTHROPOLOGIC MISCELLANEA Mr Warren K. Moorehead and "The Stone Age in North America." -The author of The Stone Age in North America is evidently displeased with my brief review of his work which appeared in the January-March number of this journal, and he presented an extended “reply" in the July-September issue. I regret having caused this displeasure, and am likewise surprised, as I regarded my criticisms of his work as being rather mild. But really what does Mr Moorehead mean by "the stone age in North America"? He fails to recognize the age of stone as being an epoch in the cultural development of a people, beyond which no tribe in America had advanced at the time of the discovery. He fails to realize the fact that some tribes, within the United States, are still living in the stone age. He writes (vol. I, p. 34): ". . . stone implements were in use in remote portions of the United States two centuries ago. . . .' The United States two centuries ago! But he fails to state that stone implements are even now made and used by some tribes. And, likewise, Mr Moorehead has a curious conception of the people of the stone age: he appears to regard them as supernatural beings, for he says (vol. I, pp. 92–94): "As shedding some light on the use of such a knife, I was interested to read, when studying the accounts of early Spanish explorers, 1530-1540, to find a description of how such implements . . were used in the Southwest. An ethnologist would have made great sacrifices to have been with Cabeza De Vaca. In his narrative he gives a description of a remarkable medicine-man. This man represented the true Stone Age type; although what we have concerning him is but a fragment, it is worthy of preservation in that it sheds light on the use of certain large flint implements, and on practices of ancient medicine-men. "They said that a man wandered through the country whom they called Badthing; he was small of body and wore a beard, and they never distinctly saw his features. When he came to the house where they lived, their hair stood up and they trembled. Presently a blazing torch shone at the door, when he entered and seized whom he chose, and giving him three great gashes in the side with a very sharp flint, the width of the hand and two palms in length, he put his hand through them, drawing forth the entrails, from one of which he would cut off a portion more or less, the length of a palm, and throw it on the embers. Then he would give three gashes to an arm, the second cut on the inside of an elbow, and would sever the limb. A little after this, he would begin to unite it, and putting his hands on the wounds, these would instantly become healed. They said that frequently in the dance he appeared among them, sometimes in the dress of a woman, at others in that of a man; that when it pleased him he would take a buhio, or house, and lifting it high, after a little he would come down with it in a heavy fall.'"' The author of the Stone Age evidently accepts this as fact, not fiction, and is of the belief that "this man represented the true Stone Age type." Therefore to this type of man he must attribute the mounds and earthworks, and the various objects found scattered over the surface. The stone age in North America must have been an age of fable, an age of mystery, not to be recognized unless there was a distinct reference to the use of a piece of stone. Mr Moorehead has probably gained his "clear perspective of the past in this country" (vol. I, p. 4) from studying the works of early Spanish writers. In the "Conclusions" (vol. II, p. 348) our author deplores the fact that the early writers "did not give us more detail about stone-age times." But we find where he states (vol. I, p. 249) that, "entirely too much has been made of the fact that chipped implements of various kinds have been seen in the possession of modern Indians the past two hundred years." Such inconsistencies as these are characteristic of The Stone Age in North America. This sentence occurs in the last paragraph of Mr Moorehead's reply: "There are also many observations which the school Mr Bushnell represents will regard askance, because that school sees nothing beyond the culture of historic Indians in America." Very true. "Many observations" appearing in the Stone Age might well have been made by a pseudo-scientist or a "real archeologist" of several generations ago, but it is difficult to understand why they should be presented in any work at the present time. As yet no generally acceptable evidence has been presented to prove the existence of so-called paleolithic man in America. No human remains have been discovered in any section of the country that exhibit characteristics differing from those of living tribes. Nothing has ever been found in the United States, either on or below the surface, the origin of which could not be justly attributed to either the living tribes or their ancestors. This applies to all earthworks as well as to small objects of stone, etc. Why, then, should some endeavor to draw a sharp distinction between archeology and ethnology when applied to the study of the arts of the North American Indians? The mere fact that an object is made of stone or some other hard material, and is found on the surface or in a grave, is accepted by the "archeologist" as proof of great antiquity of the object, although many such specimens may date from the last century, may even have been made within a generation. Shell beads have been recovered from many burials in the area east of the Mississippi; many of these are undoubtedly less than two centuries old, yet they would be classed as "archeological material"; but how would the "real archeologist" classify the shell beads on the "habit" and "purse" now in the Ashmolean Museum, articles which were obtained in Virginia three centuries or more ago? The questions presented by Mr Moorehead in his reply are not of sufficient importance to be treated in detail. I see no reason for retracting a word of my review of Mr Moorehead's book, and, as I have already said, I regard the criticisms of his work as being rather mild. I reiterate the assertion made in the first paragraph of the review that "the pages are replete with inaccurate, misleading statements, rendering the work, for all practical purposes, quite valueless." DAVID I. Bushnell, Jr. Some Shoshonean Etymologies.-"The origin of the term Shoshoni appears to be unknown. It apparently is not a Shoshoni word, and although the name is recognized by the Shoshoni as applying to themselves, it probably originated among some other tribe." (Handbook of American Indians; Bureau of American Ethnology, part II, p. 556.) Repeated inquiries among the northern Paiute, of eastern Oregon, with whose language the writer is familiar, elicit but one answer as to the origin and meaning of the term Shoshoni. It is a Shoshonean word, and refers to the method of dressing the hair employed by the Shoshoni in former times. Captain Clark, in his work on the Indian Sign Language says: "The manner of dressing or wearing the hair in former years usually determined the tribe, the style in each being different." Further on, in reference to the sign of the Sioux, he proceeds to say: "To denote the Sioux (other than the Assinaboine branch), the Gros Ventres of the Prairie, Blackfeet, Flatheads, and some other tribes, in addition to above, bring palms of extended hands against top of head and move them down the sides, to indicate parting the hair in the middle and combing it down over the sides of the head." According to the Shoshoni, the Sioux "combed their hair like a woman," while the Shoshoni roached the forelock and rubbed it with the hand until it presented a tangled, curly appearance. From this characteristic arose the name "tsosóni," or "curly-head," in contra-distinction to the term "tsopátakwünidi,” "smooth-head," as the Sioux were sometimes called. The derivation is from tso, the head, and sóni, tangled, or curly. The Paiute word for curly-head is tsosónitukadi, which is from the same stems plus the pronominal-possessive suffix -tukádi. As to the names Ute and Paiute, over which there has been much discussion, Captain Louey, a sub-chief of the Oregon Paiute, offers an explanation, which the writer has verified through other informants. He says that the name Ute is derived from the Shoshonean root yu, meaning like, or similar to, and ta, the first personal plural pronoun, and is equivalent to "like us," or "similar to us." The term Paiute is compounded of pa, water and yúta, and was formerly applied to those Indians of the Shoshonean stock whose home was on the eastern shore of Great Salt Lake. The Oregon Shoshoneans call the Ute Pakwítzimina, from pakwí, fish, and tzimína, to unjoint. The name arose from the habit of the Ute of unjointing the vertebræ of the fish for the purpose of making beads. As to the term yúta, while its meaning may be translated into English by the Indian as "like us," "similar to us," the writer is of the opinion that the real etymology of the word is derivable from the root yu, meaning like, or similar, and the Shoshonean pronominal suffix -ta, meaning "the one who," the equivalence being, "the one who is like (us)." The genius of the language would make this the more probable view. The Oregon Paiute repudiate the name "Paiute," although they recognize it as applicable to those Shoshoneans who lived near Great Salt Lake, and who called themselves Paiyúta. W. L. MARSDEN. A Tentative List of the Hispanized Chumashan Place-Names of San Luis Obispo, Santa Barbara, and Ventura Counties, California.— Will persons familiar with Spanish family names and place names kindly inform the writer if any of the words in the following list are not of Chumashan Indian origin? Anacápa, one of the Channel Islands. Anapamú, name of a street in Santa Barbara, always said by the Spanish population to be of Indian origin. Camúlos, a town on the railroad in the Santa Clara River valley, Ventura County, above Santa Paula. Cayúcas, a town on the coast north of El Morro in San Luis Obispo County. Although the Spanish-speaking people say that this is an AM. ANTH., N. S., 13-47 Indian word, Spanish dictionaries give cayuca as a word meaning "head" in the Cuban dialect of Spanish. Hueneme, a town on the coast near Oxnard, Ventura County. Magú, a point on the coast in Ventura County, south of Huenéme. Matilija, a large canyon in the vicinity of the lower Ojai valley, Ventura County. Montalvo, a town in the Santa Clara River valley, Ventura County, below Santa Paula. Nojohuí, a beautiful waterfall, canyon, and creek in the Santa Ynez Mountains, Santa Barbara County, between Las Cruces and Santa Ynez. Ojai, the name of two valleys in Ventura County, known respectively as the Lower Ojai and the Upper Ojai. Pirú, a canyon, creek, and town in Ventura County, northeast of Santa Paula. Písmo, a beach in Santa Barbara and San Luis Obispo counties extending from the mouth of the Santa Maria River to the vicinity of Pismo town. Séspe, a long cañada and canyon in Ventura County, emptying into the Santa Clara River above Santa Paula.1 Simí, a large valley and a town in Ventura County encircled by the Santa Susana Mountains and Oak Ridge. Tápo, a canyon and ranch in the Santa Susana Mountains northeast of Simi town, Ventura County. Mr Guadalupe Perea, whose family. has lived long in this vicinity, declares that this word is of Chumashan Indian origin. Topatópa, a conspicuous peak north of Santa Paula, Ventura County. Záca, a lake and a region in the Zaca Lake Forest Reserve, Santa Barbara County. JOHN P. HARRINGTON. THE Harvard University Gazette records among the activities of the Peabody Museum that during the summer Dr Alfred M. Tozzer and Mr Clarence L. Hay made a trip to Mexico. Mr Hay purchased a valuable collection which he has given to the museum. Dr Charles Peabody represented the museum at the Prehistoric Congress of France, held at Nimes in August, 1911, and presented a paper on "The Archeology of the Delaware Valley," with special reference to the work of Mr 1 .. Sesepe river" (misprint?), D. P. Barrows, The Ethno-Botany of the Coahuilla Indians of Southern California, Chicago, 1900, p. 73, quoting Taylor, California Farmer, vol. XVI, no. 15. |